[Standards] IMML

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Wed Aug 8 18:36:27 UTC 2007


Alex Jones wrote:
>> 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.

Yes. The sending user will see how her client interpreted what she 
typed, and can therefore control what the receiving user will see before 
clicking <SEND>.


Alex Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 13:21 +0100, Ian Paterson 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).
>>     
>
> 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.
>   

Well, RFC 3921 states that "the <body/> element MUST NOT contain mixed 
content".

And I agree with Michal that we should avoid including three copies of 
the message in each stanza. So it seems that the only place for the new 
emoticon tags is inside the XHTML-IM (under a different namespace).

Furthermore, it would be complicated to write the code to display both 
XHTML and emoticon elements if they are kept separate. Whereas it is 
trivial to write the code to ignore the one or the other if they are merged.

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list