alex at weej.com
Wed Aug 8 14:22:11 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:02 +0200, Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
> 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)
I imagine such IMML messages would replace most XHTML messages anyway,
meaning only two copies of the message.
> By the way, how the sending client knows in is an emoticon? Many users I
> know just type them, not select from list.
That's an application issue that can be tackled. In any event, rather
the sender decide than the receiver.
More information about the Standards