[Standards] IMML

Alex Jones alex at weej.com
Mon Aug 6 18:24:57 UTC 2007


Hi

XHTML-IM is for sending HTML messages. IMML is for sending modern
Instant Messages. IMML intentionally leaves out most of the flexibility
that XHTML-IM provides, most of which has no semantic meaning
whatsoever. We might as well be using XSL-FO.

Imposing rules such as you suggest for HTML a's just adds to the
complexity of implementation, and illustrates that HTML in any form is
simply the wrong tool for the job.

On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:38 -0700, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007 5:33 am, Alex Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 20:05 -0700, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > > On Sunday 05 August 2007 5:11 pm, Alex Jones wrote:
> > > > Hi list
> > > >
> > > > I am intending to make an XEP of this. Is anyone interested in helping
> > > > me, as I haven't really got a clue how to write a proper specification.
> > > >
> > > > http://spark.us.weej.net/~alex/temp/imml.html
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > XEP-71 (XHTML-IM), offers a subset of XHTML markup suitable for IM.  This
> > > should be sufficient, don't you think?
> >
> > No, for the reasons I specify in my text.
> 
> XEP-71 is XHTML-IM, not XHTML.  It is a reduced set of markup meant for IM, 
> with security in mind, and this is essentially what you are proposing.
> 
> If your ideas have merit, then how about we apply them against XEP-71?  For 
> example, if we don't want hyperlinks that trick you, we could require that 
> all <a> hrefs have matching uri and child text in XEP-71.
> 
> Is there a reason to want both XEP-71 and IMML, when they seem to have similar 
> goals?  That's my question.
> 
> -Justin




More information about the Standards mailing list