[Standards] Questions about xhtml-im
jbowers at barracuda.com
Fri Jul 18 14:52:43 UTC 2008
> Of course, at the end, formatted text is presented to the peer, but
> this is formatting done according to the semantic, not the opposite!
> This is always the issue when people thought the "presentation" should
> go first and then by sending a formatted text to a peer, this one
> receives something unreadable with a completely different display that
> what expected the sender, etc.
The thing about semantics is that they don't exist in a vacuum; somebody had to intend them at some point. I'd suggest that when you said in your first message:
> -> You don't set text in bold or italic (which you can do with the
> style attribute), you emphasize them!
> -> You don't set a text with a bigger police, underline it and give it
> a different police, no you set titles, subtitles, etc.
That at least in terms of the IM users I deal with, people really *are* "bolding" and "italicizing". You can tell by that fact that if you shipped out an <em> tag and the receiving client "chose" to interpret that "semantic" as coloring it bright red for emphasis, you'd get a bug filed against both clients for handling "italics" wrong. And that bug report would indeed talk about "italics"; you'd never see a bug report about how "I went to emphasize some text, but..."
Making up semantics where there are none is as great a crime as failing to expose them, if not greater. Sending out the presentation tags is the semantically correct thing to do in a standardized rich-text IM context. If you're not in that context, do something else; you're off the xhtml-*IM* standard anyhow. See also requirement #1 of XEP-0071:
"IM clients are not XHTML clients: their primary purpose is not to read pre-existing XHTML documents, but to read and generate relatively large numbers of fairly small instant messages."
Barracuda Networks makes the best spam firewalls and web filters. www.barracudanetworks.com
More information about the Standards