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

Sergey Dobrov binary at jrudevels.org
Fri Oct 12 10:07:56 UTC 2012

On 10/11/2012 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.

agree. It would be a nasty thing to make it impossible to grant rights
to the sender to control the styles for the recipient.

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

Yes, it seems that the set of allowed tags should be reviewed too.

> Peter

With best regards,
Sergey Dobrov,
XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.

More information about the Standards mailing list