[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Nov 6 21:29:27 UTC 2017

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017, at 14:08, Marvin Gülker wrote:
> The XEP defines requirements like "MUST be displayed in italics" (§6.5)
> or "MUST be displayed with a horizontal line through the middle (strike
> through)" (§6.6) that immediately map to the user interface and are not
> possible to implement in a terminal client on most terminal emulators. I
> don't see why a terminal client should be excluded from supporting this
> XEP -- it might be able to show elements by other means than the XEP
> author imagined (e.g., using colour instead of italics; check how man(1)
> copes with italics). The wording should be changed to reflect the
> semantical meaning and not the visual outcome.

Good point! Assuming this is accepted (we'll see), I will rephrase and
make the specific stylings (bold, italic, etc.) a recommendation instead
of a MUST. Thanks for the feedback!

> Another point of critique we already heard earlier on this mailinglist:
> anything that's not based on XML requires the application developer to
> either implement a new parser for the format himself or add a dependency
> on an external parser. It looks like this XEP is Markdown for the sake
> of using Markdown, whereas a more efficient solution would rely on the
> tools already available.

I do think that using a custom language is a bit of an annoyance since
everyone has to implement it, but this is a fairly easy parser to write.
I'm not sure what existing tools would be a good fit though (note that
this isn't Markdown and existing Markdown implementations have already
been discounted for reasons discussed in other threads), but I would
welcome suggestions if there's something nice out there already that I
don't know of which meets the same use cases and requirements.

> Not using something XML-based in a XEP's format
> also creates a precedence case from which we don't know where else it
> will come back at us when other XEPs are made.

I didn't understand this, sorry, could you please rephrase it or attempt
to clarify?


More information about the Standards mailing list