[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0071 XHTML-IM lack of scope
rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Thu Sep 2 10:30:33 UTC 2004
> I think this dicussion is totally beside the actual intention. The
> between the use of XHTML in Jabber and on the web is that on the web
> the total
> misuse of the elements is due to the fact that people edit XHTML
> themselves or
> have it generated by brain-dead software.
You're right, and I allowed myself to get caught up in the conversation
by accepting the premise that XHTML-IM should enforce 'proper markup,'
and that it was thus worth debating whether <strong/> and <em/> were
appropriate markup. Mea culpa. :)
> So I imagine a button Bold that generates <b></b> or the CSS
> equivalent. And
> so on. Maybe we shouldn't even use <em/>, but that depends on the user
> interface. It could have a button that says 'Emphasize' instead. But
> I wouldn't also show 'Bold' and 'Italics'.
I guess this is what it all boils down to, at least from my viewpoint;
does the 'bold' button generate text wrapped in <strong/>, or does it
generate text wrapped in <span style='font-weight: bold'/>? And if the
latter, should we perhaps rethink having font-style and font-weight as
RECOMMENDED and move them to MUST, and change the JEP samples
accordingly? I know my decision to generate <strong/> and <em/> to
represent bold and italic formatting on outgoing text was heavily
influenced by the fact that the JEP examples all use <strong/> for
their bolding and <em/> for their italics.
I put this in terms of 'Bold' and 'Italics' because your average IM end
user is going to expect 'Bold,' 'Underline,' and 'Italics' formatting
buttons, not, say, 'Strong' or 'Emphasis' buttons.
Rachel 'Sparks' Blackman -- sysadmin, developer, mad scientist
"If it is not broken, give me five minutes to redesign it!"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Standards