[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Nov 7 20:26:54 UTC 2017


On 7 November 2017 at 18:29, Jonas Wielicki <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
> On Montag, 6. November 2017 11:58:15 CET Sam Whited wrote:
>> URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/styling.html
>
> This XEP is incompatible with *sending* clients (be they human or automated)
> which are not aware of it. I strongly advocate for an opt-in mechanism (at
> which point this is the rejected Body Markup Hints ProtoXEP, but with a custom
> markup) on each message; if that’s not gonna find consensus, I think an opt-
> out mechanism is the least which must be done.
>

I agree that a simplified BMH is the right path here.

> I also still think that this XEP mixes input conventions with wire format in a
> very unfortunate way. In the spirit of "complaining about things this XEP is
> not trying to be is not going to help anyone", I am currently preparing a
> another ProtoXEP.

And I look forward to it. But I think we may then end up with
multipart/alternative, and I'm not wholly sure I want that.

* The content fork concept has proven a bit of a pain in email,
whereas "subtle" formatting, like format-flowed, has worked very well.
* We double the size of messages, by writing everything twice.
* Such a design more or less requires content negotiation, which is a
fine thing, but basically fails in MUC and similar cases.
* By writing everything twice, we double the size of messages.

Dave.


More information about the Standards mailing list