[Standards-JIG] XHTML-IM Conclusions
ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Fri Sep 3 10:16:42 UTC 2004
> > If we cut out as much XHTML as possible, this will make the XHTML
> > more simple to parse, _validate_ and render. Let's not repeat
> > a ten-year-old mistake and handicap ourselves with the added
> > complexity of supporting both XHTML pseudo-styling and CSS styling.
> Lets take it back a step, and just think about a _protocol_ for
> IM+basic styles... And its not tied to any particular technology.
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this thread Rob. It _is_ a good
idea to take a step back sometimes.
While it is true that as soon as we use an externally defined namespace we
loose some control, IMHO the arguments for adopting CSS/XHTML are good ones:
- Borrowing work from existing open standards is good when appropriate.
- CSS is a very good, familiar and simple styling standard.
- XHTML is a familiar way of binding CSS to text (it also offers a few
useful extras - like links and inline images).
- My proposed minimal subset of CSS/XHTML is almost as simple as any
protocol we might design ourselves.
- Many client developers are familiar with CSS/XHTML and have access to
libraries that can render it.
- CSS/XHTML may be used in future JEPs
Here is your example using xhtml-im:
<message to='foo' from='bar'>
Wear a false limb!
Be <span style='font-weight:bold'>bold</span>!
Wear a <span style='color:red'>false limb</span>!
> <message to='foo' from='bar'>
> Be bold!
> Wear a false limb!
> <body xmlns='http://www.jabber.org/protocol/styled'>
> Be <style type='bold'>bold</style>!
> Wear a <style type='color/red'>false limb</style>!
P.S. Congratulations for managing to 'do your own thing'. It's not easy, but
it's what we're all here for. :)
More information about the Standards