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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Oct 11 15:23:46 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA1

On 9/27/12 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 7/31/12 6:43 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
>> I am also not sure about the <strong/> and <blockquote/>
>> elements: they are shown as a recommended element to support
>> (7.8), but the business rules (8.7) states that they should not
>> be used, but rather <span/> or <p/> with appropriate style
>> attributes. Is it only for backward compatibility, then?
> I think we need a broader discussion of this topic, since it caused
> so much controversy when we first defined XHTML-IM. I will review
> the old list discussion and more modern opinions on this topic,
> then post to the list again.

Here is the relevant business rule:


The use of structural elements is NOT RECOMMENDED where presentational
styles are desired, which is why very few structural elements are
specified herein. Implementations SHOULD use appropriate 'style'
attributes (e.g., <span style='font-weight: bold'>this is bold</span>
and <p style='margin-left: 5%'>this is indented</p>) rather than XHTML
structural elements (e.g., <strong/> and <blockquote/>) wherever possible.


That now seems wrongheaded to me. Sure, *if* you just want a pretty
presentation (say, a bit of green-colored text), then 'style'
attributes are appropriate. However, it seems to me that if you want
to quote something or emphasize something then using <blockquote/> or
<em/> is the right thing to do.

(I also wonder why we don't support <q/> for inline quotation...)


- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the Standards mailing list