[Standards] Need sanity check on an example in XEP-0393: Message Styling

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Sun Nov 8 16:15:33 UTC 2020

Since the clients don't have any consistency right now, I think it makes
sense to make the minimal change to the spec. If the rules had meant
that "***" should be styled and the examples were just wrong, this would
have been fixing the non-normative examples, but since we've come to the
conclusion that the rules are ambiguous, I think this means clarifying
the rules and leaving the example alone (since authors in theory are
likely to match the examples if the rule isn't clear).

To that end I've submitted the following change which I believe is
acceptable for a draft PR since it just clarifies the situation and
does not change what an implementer would do based on the examples. I
believe council needs to review draft changes, so I request that they
do so at their earliest convenience. And of course, let me know if you
think this is wrong!



On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, at 11:26, Sam Whited wrote:
> After a long and productive conversation with Ted, I think I have a
> better understanding of this situation and the answer is that it's
> just underspecified and there are multiple valid interpretations of
> "***" and "****" depending on how you build your parser (though I
> would still very much love to get other opinions).

More information about the Standards mailing list