[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Jonas Wielicki jonas at wielicki.name
Mon Nov 6 20:52:38 UTC 2017


On Montag, 6. November 2017 21:19:47 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> It's probably more helpful if people comment on the actual XEP in
> regards to specific rules or wording in the XEP.
> Just complaining about it and wanting something completely different
> is not going to help anyone.
> If you want semantic information in there or if you prefer something
> XHTML based go ahead and write that XEP.
> But this particular XEP is not magically going to turn into something
> completely different.
> 
> </rant>

While I agree with your statement in general (that XEPs should be commented on 
based on what they are), I think this situation is different from the general 
case.

We have the situation that one group is pushing for abandoning XHTML-IM (for 
good reasons!) and any XEP remotely touching the area of markup *will* be held 
against XHTML-IM standards (we’ve seen that with Body Markup Hints) and the 
use-cases people discussed on the list in the last weeks. 

Now we find that one of the proponents of obsoleting XHTML-IM is proposing a 
XEP which solves some of the use-cases in ways for which we’ve heard arguments 
against which only partially have been refuted properly. I personally find 
this frustrating because it feels like those offering criticism are being 
ignored for no good reason.

And I think those raising their voices on those matters are in the right here.

kind regards,
Jonas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20171106/d9cc4fc2/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list