[Standards] IMML

Mridul Muralidharan 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.
>>>>> 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.
> 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...
> /psa

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 mailing list