mridul at sun.com
Tue Aug 7 21:10:18 UTC 2007
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.
>>>> 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.
> IMHO that would be a good item to add to the security considerations in
> 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:
> If people want something even more minimal and texty, they could simply
> use Textile or some other lightweight text formatting approach:
> It seems that lots of Jabber clients already support things like *bold*
> and /italic/ and _underline_ so perhaps that is enough...
The impression I got about what Alex described on jdev was that he
wanted a way to completely separate the content from markup/other
rendering attributes (and that he wanted a much more simpler markup ...
I am not touching on that here :) ).
My impression was that this was already so for most of the case in
XHTML-IM, except for the usual implicit rendering which happens -
namely, use of _, /, *, emoticon (offhand, I cant think of anything else).
The first three already have tags within IM-XHTML, if we just add
another tag to explicitly mark emoticons - and remove the implicit
rendering completely - then Alex's baseline requirements should be done
with IM-XHTML itself ?
More information about the Standards