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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Sep 27 23:23:26 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA1

On 9/27/12 8:52 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/1/12 3:42 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
>> On 08/01/2012 07:43 AM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
>>> 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.

Here is proposed text for Section 7.5...


The XHTML specification allows a "data:" URL RFC 2397 [22] as the
value of the 'src' attribute. This is NOT RECOMMENDED for use in
XHTML-IM, because it can significantly increase the size of the
message stanza and XMPP is not optimized for large stanzas. If the
image data is small (less than 8 kilobytes), clients MAY use Bits of
Binary [23] in coordination with XHTML-IM; if the image data is large,
the value of the 'src' SHOULD be a pointer to an externally available
file for the image (or the sender SHOULD use a dedicated file transfer
method such as In-Band Bytestreams [24] or SOCKS5 Bytestreams [25]).



- -- 
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