[Standards] IMML

Michal 'vorner' Vaner vorner at ucw.cz
Wed Aug 8 14:02:15 UTC 2007


On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 01:28:53PM +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
> > Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> > > 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 ?
> > 
> > Yes. This would be backward compatible too since, IIRC, XHTML parsers 
> > should ignore tags they don't understand (and the tag would be qualified 
> > by a namespace other than 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' anyway).
> > 
> > - Ian
> > 
> I feel it shouldn't be a part of XHTML-IM though. I think there is a
> need to use icons that is independent of the need to use even the most
> minimal, valid support of XHTML-IM.

I think the XHTML-IM thing is OK. At last better than having the same
message 3 times in one stanza. If someone wants to have that smart, then
he has XHTML-IM. (Take it as an opinion from someone who does not like
message formating, image emoticons and so on at all)

By the way, how the sending client knows in is an emoticon? Many users I
know just type them, not select from list.

You can't have everything... where would you put it?
    -- Steven Wright

Michal 'vorner' Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070808/ece81f0b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list