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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Oct 12 13:53:48 UTC 2012


On 10/12/12 4:07 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
> 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.

Maybe. :) I'm sure we had good reasons for the limited subset we defined
in 2003-2004, and I am not sure we want to reconsider every element and
attribute when the XEP is so mature.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/





More information about the Standards mailing list