[Standards-JIG] XHTML-IM: moving forward
thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Fri Sep 10 21:23:09 UTC 2004
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:24:08 -0500, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
> As far as I can see, the current JEP-0071 addresses the requirements of
> a basic structure-and-styling mechanism for IM messages, which is what
> we've wanted all along and which meets the needs of 90%+ of the end
> users and developers out there.
I *do* think the discussion has shown there are legitimate use cases that
apply to a broad group of users that go beyond the current XHTML-IM spec.
Particulary in content publishing. Mostly, yes that involves tables. This
was also the most requested feature before the discussion started, by
multiple people, and again during the discussion.
Yet I do think we came to a consencus it's unfair to expect all clients to
implement it. I think having an XHTML Disco node, where you can disco
which XHTML "modules" are supported is sufficient for that. I don't think
these would have to map directly to the actual XHTML spec of such modules,
rather, there should be a description about them somewhere like in the
XHTML-IM JEP, telling which elements and properties are recommended and
which not. I don't know if these would all have to be put in JEPs either,
you could simply register them with the Jabber Registrar.
So someone could create a simple-tables module without nesting, and
someoen could create a superset that has "full" table support, but for
example I could also have the benifit of finding out whether images are
supported (If they are not I could send a hyperlink instead). If someone
wants to do that text-to-speech thing we've talked about, create a module
describing the needed CSS elements.
Would this really require such big changes in the JEP? The section on
disco would grow with the "standard" addition of a disco node for XHTML
(like with AMP), the Jabber Registar stuff would need some work, and every
currently described module would have to get a Jabber Registrar registered
The alternative *is* to use different namespaces for this, I suppose a new
one for each addition and each combination of additions would be needed
(and a JEP for all of them too??)? I'm not so convinced of the elegancy of
this, since it is still in the "territory" of simple XHTML structure/style
in IM messages. I think "disco" is the best way of provinding such
extendability, like it's done in AMP.
More information about the Standards