[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0071 XHTML-IM lack of scope

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Sep 8 15:30:41 UTC 2004


In article <1EA692FC-FCCB-11D8-8327-000A958F753E at ceruleanstudios.com>,
 Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com> wrote:

> > 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 
> > then
> > 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'/>?  

The latter seems preferable to me now.

> 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?  

Will do.

> 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.

Agreed.

Peter




More information about the Standards mailing list