Reply inline: - Dave
Note: I'm in almost complete agreement, so you may not want to bother reading this message if you're short on time. Dave Turner wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:21:22PM -0400, Dave wrote: > > That was my other original idea (take a peek at my first post on this > > subject, a few days ago). However, the sender may want a little more > > control over the interpretation of his message, and having the receiving > > client decide those regexps takes that control away from the sender > > That was my intention. I agreed with your initial post. I actually > prefer the way that AIM, for example, transmits it's emoticons as > commonly recognised ascii and then the receiver, if it supports it, > interprets them and inlays the images. The problem is that many of the emoticons that people want didn't grow up in the email universe, so they're just images - the only "sensible ASCII" translation would be a word in some language describing the meaning of the image. > > I'd rather define how I look at the data coming to me than the sender. > The sender should describe WHAT the data is not HOW it should be viewed. That's a fundamental principle of XML (and _was_ a fundamental principle of HTML, until Netscape and Microsoft got their hands on it). > > > > That whole question is moot if you're using an existing standard (like > > HTML IMG tags), rather than stewing your own kludge: web browsers are > > At least with the IMG tag I guess you can use the 'alt' attribute to give > a text alternative which I could settle for. I tend to like that solution, but I can read English, so the ALT attribute makes sense to me. Jabber still lacks built-in internationalization support, so anything we do will have to include its own internationalization support - else, we'll have the whole international community trying to lynch us ;-) > > > If the general aim is to format the output at the receiver end, how about > XSLT? Then the receiver has ultimate control over formatting, the data > that is transmitted is suitably marked up to describe the content, and the > sender can recommend a particular display format for the data. That can be abused too easily. At least HTML is more mature, so working around abuse is easier. > > > -- > Dave Turner > http://figroll.com/ > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
