[Standards-JIG] Re: XHTML-IM Extensibility

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Sep 8 15:57:55 UTC 2004

In article 
<8CDC3525190B624F8F740435C7B9A01D1A31F3 at heineken.winfessor.com>,
 "JD Conley" <jconley at winfessor.com> wrote:

> As was mentioned earlier, why don't we force each client to list which
> XHTML modules it supports in disco and caps?  XHTML-IM as it sits today
> could be renamed to XHTML-IM-FORMATTING and become a profile of the
> XHTML-IM specification.  XHTML-IM would then become an abstract JEP
> specifying the relationship of XHTML modules to XMPP and defining how
> XHTML-IM profiles (like XHTML-IM-FORMATTING) should be created.  I could
> then build an XHTML-IM-LAYOUT that allowed for CSS positioning and/or
> tables. 

I think there is value in this suggestion but I'm not sure yet how it 
fits in with the "simplify" thread and I don't have the luxury of being 
able to devote a lot of time to it today. One thing we'd need to address 
is the difference between supported XHTML modules and the content model 
of the XMPP profile thereof. You can't selectively pick and choose parts 
of an XHTML module, but we can define our content models however we 
want. So two XMPP profiles might both include the Text module, but their 
content models might be different (e.g., one includes <cite/> and all 
that, whereas another includes only <div/> with styles as described by 
Ian Paterson).

But I'll try to work on this tonight or tomorrow.


More information about the Standards mailing list