[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0393 (Message Styling)

Marvin W xmpp at larma.de
Mon May 18 11:02:27 UTC 2020


On 12.05.20 21:35, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor) wrote:
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
> stack or to clarify an existing protocol?

This XEP tries to fill the gap of lack of formatting instructions
introduced by deprecating XHTML-IM (XEP-0071).

> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
> and requirements?

The XEP does not allow to have a message that is rendered the same as
the HTML "I am <b>bold</b>". This is because styling directives are done
inline and are supposed to be displayed, thus to make a word bold, it is
required to change the text as it is displayed.

§7 outlines accessibility considerations which I don't believe have been
thought through carefully:

> When displaying text with formatting, developers should take care to
ensure sufficient contrast exists between styled and unstyled text so
that users with vision deficiencies are able to distinguish between the two.

Some clients reduce contrast of characters they believe to be meant as
styling directive. The accessibility considerations don't mention this
at all. Given that through the way styling directives work there are
false positives, it's more important to properly display styling
directives than to ensure contrast between different styles of text.
Also depending on the type of application and device, it may be
impossible to ensure high contrast between styled and unstyled text.

Also this section ask to ensure high contrast between styled and
unstyled. However good readability of *all* text should be preferred
over high contrast. If styling directives are displayed properly, users
with vision deficiencies can also "just" read the styling directives
instead of the styling itself.

> Formatted text may also be rendered poorly by screen readers. When
applying formatting it may be desirable to include directives to exclude
formatting characters from being read.

As mentioned above there are false positives in styling directive
detection. If those would not be read, users with screen readers would
no longer be able to correctly read the message. Also screen readers
often lack support for reading styling, thus it also makes sense to read
styling directives if it's not a false positive. I'd turn this statement
around and change it as such:

> it may be desirable to include directives to exclude styling from
being read but to ensure that styling directives are read, i.e. "This is
*bold*" thus should be read as "This is asterisk bold asterisk".

> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
> why not?

Dino currently does not implement quotations (as specified in §5.1.3).
Various clients already have different ways in displaying quotations,
some are *not* following the recommendation layed out in §6 to display
formatting characters.

> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?

No.

> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?

Nitpick: In §4 the term "styling directive" is introduced, which is used
in §5. In §6 and §7 the term "formatting characters" is used which
remains undefined. I believe it's meant to be the same, thus "formatting
characters" should be changed to "styling directives" in §6 and §7.


More information about the Standards mailing list