Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Maxime Buquet
On 2017/10/18, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 20:09:28 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > > On 18.10.2017 19:58, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > > >> The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Jonas Wielicki
On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 13:38:47 CEST Sam Whited wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 12:40, Goffi wrote: > > If we base the debate on devs not really taking care of security (which > > was > > the initial issue with XHTML-IM) or path of less resistance, they will > > most > > probably just

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Jonas Wielicki
On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 20:09:28 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 18.10.2017 19:58, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > >> The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a bunch > >> of data formatted using a markup

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Goffi
Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 20:38:47 CEST Sam Whited a écrit : > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 12:40, Goffi wrote: > > If we base the debate on devs not really taking care of security (which > > was > > the initial issue with XHTML-IM) or path of less resistance, they will > > most > > probably just

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Sam Whited
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 12:40, Goffi wrote: > If we base the debate on devs not really taking care of security (which > was > the initial issue with XHTML-IM) or path of less resistance, they will > most > probably just send the raw Markdown to the list, were HTML can be > executed. It would

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Goffi
Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 19:56:23 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : > On 18.10.2017 19:40, Goffi wrote: > > If you believe that clients operated by human users send BMH then please > read the very first post of mine on this thread. I think a lot of > confusion comes from this assumption. > >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 18.10.2017 19:58, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: >> The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a bunch >> of data formatted using a markup language, say CommonMark, that I want >> to send over XMPP to an XMPP

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 18.10.2017 19:48, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:21:33 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: >> Again: The assumption is that there is a lot of markup'd data, >> especially CommonMark, out there. And the amount flowing through the >> XMPP network will increase over time. > > Do

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Jonas Wielicki
On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a bunch > of data formatted using a markup language, say CommonMark, that I want > to send over XMPP to an XMPP client. Because there is no converter from >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 18.10.2017 19:40, Goffi wrote: > Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 19:19:53 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : >> On 18.10.2017 18:47, Goffi wrote: >>> Again allowing a protoXEP like this would mean using it as a rich syntax >>> vectore, so the issue is relevant. >> >> No, it is totally irrelevant.

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Jonas Wielicki
On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:21:33 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > Again: The assumption is that there is a lot of markup'd data, > especially CommonMark, out there. And the amount flowing through the > XMPP network will increase over time. Do you have a source for that assumption? kind

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Goffi
Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 19:19:53 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : > On 18.10.2017 18:47, Goffi wrote: > > CommonMark is specified, but how can you garantee that the dev will use > > libraries compliant with CommonMark? > > No one can, but that applies to all approaches, even to text. It

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Goffi
Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : > On 18.10.2017 17:52, Goffi wrote: > > 1) as its name state it's a writting syntax and not a publishing one. > > There is not such thing as invalid Markdown (every text is valid > > Markdown), but the result will differ

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-18 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 18.10.2017 17:52, Goffi wrote: > I fully agree with Jonas + what I've already said on Markdown (and nobody > disagreed on those points so far), that I'll repeat below for reference + > putting it in is even worse ( is for plain text, and markup > language will not be nice outside of client

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-17 Thread Dave Cridland
On 16 Oct 2017 9:54 pm, "Maxime Buquet" wrote: I am going to repeat what I said on xsf@ a bit. On 2017/10/16, Florian Schmaus wrote: > So the case for BMH are things like > - Bots sending potential large status information, where there's a > desire to bring some structure into

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-16 Thread Maxime Buquet
On 2017/10/16, Maxime Buquet wrote: > I am going to repeat what I said on xsf@ a bit. > > On 2017/10/16, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > So the case for BMH are things like > > - Bots sending potential large status information, where there's a > > desire to bring some structure into that information

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-16 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 16.10.2017 22:40, Sam Whited wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 15:30, Florian Schmaus wrote: >> So the case for BMH are things like >> - Bots sending potential large status information, where there's a >> desire to bring some structure into that information by using a markup >> language > > In

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-16 Thread Maxime Buquet
I am going to repeat what I said on xsf@ a bit. On 2017/10/16, Florian Schmaus wrote: > So the case for BMH are things like > - Bots sending potential large status information, where there's a > desire to bring some structure into that information by using a markup > language This can be

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-16 Thread Sam Whited
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 15:30, Florian Schmaus wrote: > So the case for BMH are things like > - Bots sending potential large status information, where there's a > desire to bring some structure into that information by using a markup > language In this particular case it seems like we'd be

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-16 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 16.10.2017 20:38, Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) wrote: > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > > Title: Body Markup Hints > Abstract: > This document specifies hints about the markup language used in > elements. > > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bmh.html

[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

2017-10-16 Thread XSF Editor
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. Title: Body Markup Hints Abstract: This document specifies hints about the markup language used in elements. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bmh.html The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this