On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:02 +0200, Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote: > Hello > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 01:28:53PM +0100, Alex Jones wrote: > > > Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > > > > If we just add another tag to explicitly mark emoticons - and remove > > > > the implicit rendering completely - then Alex's baseline requirements > > > > should be done with IM-XHTML itself ? > > > > > > Yes. This would be backward compatible too since, IIRC, XHTML parsers > > > should ignore tags they don't understand (and the tag would be qualified > > > by a namespace other than 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' anyway). > > > > > > - Ian > > > > > > > I feel it shouldn't be a part of XHTML-IM though. I think there is a > > need to use icons that is independent of the need to use even the most > > minimal, valid support of XHTML-IM. > > I think the XHTML-IM thing is OK. At last better than having the same > message 3 times in one stanza. If someone wants to have that smart, then > he has XHTML-IM. (Take it as an opinion from someone who does not like > message formating, image emoticons and so on at all)
I imagine such IMML messages would replace most XHTML messages anyway, meaning only two copies of the message. > By the way, how the sending client knows in is an emoticon? Many users I > know just type them, not select from list. That's an application issue that can be tackled. In any event, rather the sender decide than the receiver.
