[Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

Matthew Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Wed Aug 22 16:33:35 UTC 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree with Sergey.  If you received XHTML-IM, then any other rich text transform ought to be disabled/bypassed.


- - m&m

Matthew A. Miller
<http://goo.gl/LK55L>


On Aug 22, 2012, at 02:35, Sergey Dobrov wrote:

> On 08/22/2012 02:31 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> Or suggest to change *this* to <strong>this</strong> or
>> <strong>*this*</strong>.
> 
> No, the thing is that a client changes this:
> 
> *this*<strong>that</strong>
> 
> in the *incoming* message to this:
> 
> <strong>this</strong><strong>that</strong>
> 
> which is obviously wrong since a sender can make things strong without
> such plain text formatting :)
> 
>> 
>> On 8/21/12 2:57 AM, "Sergey Dobrov" <binary at jrudevels.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Btw, often implementation of XHTML-IM conflicts with internal
>>> hyperlinks/smiles/plain text formatting like *this*. Maybe it will be
>>> useful to add recommendation to switch any these parsers off when a
>>> client have a deal with XHTML-IM message?
>>> 
>>> On 08/01/2012 03:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> At its meeting on July 25, 2012, the XMPP Council agreed to issue a
>>>> "Call for Experience" regarding XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM), in preparation for
>>>> perhaps advancing this specification from Draft to Final in the XSF's
>>>> standards process. To help the Council decide whether this XEP is ready
>>>> to advance to a status of Final, the Council would like to gather the
>>>> following information:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. What software has implemented XEP-0071? Please note that the protocol
>>>> must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (and preferably
>>>> more) in order to advance from Draft to Final.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as defined
>>>> in XEP-0071? If so, please describe the problems and, if possible,
>>>> suggested solutions.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Is the text of XEP-0071 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
>>>> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate? Have
>>>> developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any
>>>> suggestions you have for improving the text.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any comments about advancing XEP-0071 from Draft to Final,
>>>> please provide them by the close of business on Friday, August 31, 2012.
>>>> After the Call for Experience, this XEP might undergo revisions to
>>>> address feedback received, after which it will be presented to the XMPP
>>>> Council for voting to a status of Final.
>>>> 
>>>> You can review the specification here:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html
>>>> 
>>>> Please send all feedback to the standards at xmpp.org discussion list.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> With best regards,
>>> Sergey Dobrov,
>>> XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> With best regards,
> Sergey Dobrov,
> XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQNQngAAoJEJq6Ou0cgrSPBE8H/0p+Vd00IUsT8aXWqhcDH4sJ
JXA+NntCufRkABSyKHdSpf8MBqWQySxIs09fBTPZZeB8YCecDnnWVxs6NX7fgGCQ
8e6GSR8iVO+5b76jkuoIZMxGbl3/vHmX6wuoujruCnsWmAXPfgcONZNXeaTpxMiD
zMMHou+ctdJQUstA3eIBN50ckgwQOTPPqDtwSV8F3Z3rOKp6wO5fYrP2867nuLOI
vhU5V1HrEVIMPfiesILgg+ckQuUrbQ6i2NcE+X+RckH9uilX3cPdXJlFOpaeaI2+
AHOEioszYLbD/yWSIOAaVLZ8USUVZbV8jAYmy6Cyu8qDfmCo9zjBTyIXFW+4kcI=
=Cupk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list