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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Sep 27 14:52:15 UTC 2012


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

On 8/1/12 3:42 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 08/01/2012 07:43 AM, 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'm using the blockquote element very intensive. I don't think that
> we should give a preference to style attributes because IM differs
> from web and we need messages to be more semantic than to be more
> styled. I.e. we need to support the same style for all messages as
> strong as it possible to prevent transformation of a chat window to
> an Xmas tree, so we need to outline semantic groups rather than
> style them to provide a possibility to theme them by recipient
> preference. Also, it's easier to parse such message by machines to
> provide some advance search possibilities and etc. So I don't
> imagine the XHTML-IM without such things as blockquote, cite, code,
> strong, em, etc.

As you can imagine, we had some debates about this when we initially
worked on XHTML-IM back in 2003-2004. Some people were in favor of a
semantic approach, others in favor of a stylistic approach (these
debates mirrored somewhat the similar debates in the W3C and the web
community in general). I tend to agree now that the semantic approach
makes more sense for use in IM, and you have explained the reasoning
quite well.

>> There is the matter of the <img/> tag that accepts a data:base64
>> as a src, leading to very big stanzas. I think that maybe the XEP
>> could state that whenever possible, the use of base64 data should
>> be avoided, at least in MUCs, where the message is replicated as
>> many times as there are users, leading to high bandwith usage
>> (although if I remember correctly, most servers set the max
>> stanza size to 10 KiB).

Usually something between 10k and 64k. But yes, there are
restrictions, and I tend to agree that we should strongly prefer
pointers to external images over inline data: URLs.

> agree. possibly, we need to prefer XEP-231 for that?

Probably. I'll look at the XEP in more detail and propose some text on
this list.

Peter

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


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

iEYEARECAAYFAlBkaB8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzmCQCdGvwlx+vf7w/ORwLjGJTCayRy
5j8AnA6XYZshvzdZ1JL2WcZoRKqtrEsq
=fhID
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list