[Standards] IMML

Alex Jones alex at weej.com
Tue Aug 7 20:45:55 UTC 2007


On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 13:23 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> IMHO that would be a good item to add to the security considerations in
> XEP-0071.
> 
> I think XHTML-IM pretty much does what IMML does, but in a W3C-friendly
> manner. If people want to support an even more reduced subset of XHTML
> then I have no objections. I think clients can effectively do that via
> XEP-0071. The baseline requirements are pretty minimal:
> 
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html#profile-summary
> 
> If people want something even more minimal and texty, they could simply
> use Textile or some other lightweight text formatting approach:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_markup_languages
> 
> It seems that lots of Jabber clients already support things like *bold*
> and /italic/ and _underline_ so perhaps that is enough...

And this is exactly the problem.

rsync -a /foo/ /bar/
find -name "*foo*"

Both legitimate uses for * and / that will end up being mangled on the
other side.

This isn't about formatting, this is about getting rid of the guesswork.
Similar problems arise in parsing out icons in the presence of things
like regular expressions. Or maybe even regular chat:

Count the screws (there should be 8)

Incorrectly gets parsed out as

Count the screws (there should be SMILEYFACECOOL

Without any knowledge on the sender's half.

I don't see how XHTML-IM can support icon delimitation like IMML. I
really don't think we are talking about a subset of XHTML-IM.
-- 
Alex Jones <alex at weej.com>




More information about the Standards mailing list