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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Sep 27 23:32:15 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA1

Thanks for your feedback. Comments inline.

On 7/31/12 6:43 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
>> Is the text of XEP-0071 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples 
>> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST)
>> appropriate? Have developers found the text confusing at all?
>> Please describe any suggestions you have for improving the text.
> 7.6 states that the style attribute MUST be supported, but 7.6.1 on
> the other hand shows a list of RECOMMENDED CSS1 properties. If a
> client does not implement any of those properties, isn’t it the
> same as dropping the style attribute (and therefore not supporting
> it)?


The intent of specifying various RECOMMENDED properties in 7.6.1 is to
discourage clients from supporting even more style properties than
those listed (note that there is no official way in XHTML
modularization to limit the scope of style properties).

> 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.

> 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).

See other messages in this thread.

> Finally, although we have a somehow working partial implementation
> of XEP-0071 in Poezio, I wouldn’t count it as a proper codebase for
> XEP validation, because the limitations of console clients do not
> allow a full implementation (e.g. font changes, text-decorations
> other than underline, relative margins, etc).

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for implementing as much as possible
given the form-factor of the console. :)


- -- 
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