Richard Dobson wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:26 PM > Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines > > > >>>>Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_ >>>>messages instead of the other's? That should even things a bit ;-) >>>> >>>> - Dave >>> >>>If we're going to start counting here, you can put me down for another >>>one against >> >>I'm a "for" :) >> >> >>>1) I don't like html-ish tags being stuck directly in the message tag... >>>they're hard to filter out if you don't want them. If you want to do >>>this, do it in the xhtml tag where it is only dealt with by clients that >>>understand images. >> >>This sounds fine to me, doing it inside a xhtml tag. :) > > > Yep html should only ever be in the html section of the message, not > embedded into the plain text section, although there still needs to be a > solution for the plain text section and how to display the emoticons in that > (at the very least a standard textual representation for each emoticon). > > >>>2) I don't like using filenames to identify an emotion. Some picture >>>that somebody thinks I want to see (maybe some nice porn) does not >>>necessarily convey an emotion to me. I want to learn what an image >>>means in my client. And I want my emoticons to have the same style and >>>a style that matches my UI. And I don't think sending relative paths in >>>the SRC attribute is a good solution to this... one client may not be >>>using .png files so why should it have to look for smiley.png as a key >>>to display it's happyface image? >> >>So why not use URN's? <img src="urn:jabber-emoticon:smilie.png" >>alt=":-)" /> Nothing is fetched from anywhere, clients have an internal >>table of emoticons. > > > Thats much better than a url to an external source, but there is still the > problem of the file format here, it should not be assumed that everyone uses > a particular image format for their emoticons. > What about this: > > <img src="urn:jabber-emoticon:smilie"> alt=":-)" /> > > Just doing this solves many of the problems, although I still like my > solution ;-).
Sure, but then in either case why are we using an <img> tag? Sure we can use a tag called <img> if we want, but why not an x tag with an appropriate namespace? This doesn't save any bandwidth and now the client can't use and HTML widget to display XHTML messages because it won't understand the URN... Julian -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com) _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
