[Standards] Questions about xhtml-im

Jehan Jehan.3cr3nn at no-mx.jabberforum.org
Fri Jul 18 15:48:25 UTC 2008

Jeremy Bowers;1803 Wrote: 
> 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."

Ok. Explained like this, you get a point. And now I understand the
idea, and I can agree. It is not like I would prefer it for myself
though, but it is understandable (when you consider most normal users).

So I guess in another case, I would just use normal XHTML (for instance
inside a pubsub notification event, I would not use xhtml-im, but normal
xhtml). Then it answers 4/ and 5/ -> I simply was out of scope!

But other points remains: especially I think 2/ is a functional bug of
the XEP (at least in context of IM, it seems that you cannot use html,
head and title tags). And the remaining points are questions about
stuffs I am not 100% sure to understand...


Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911
View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=435

More information about the Standards mailing list