stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Aug 8 18:51:45 UTC 2007
Ian Paterson wrote:
> 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'
>> 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
> 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
See also: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html#w3c-conformance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards