Well, ignore my message... I thought we were in a <html/> element, but we aren't.
Le lundi 10 septembre 2007, Olivier Goffart a écrit : > Le lundi 10 septembre 2007, Tomasz Sterna a écrit : > > It was brought on a list but I will repeat it: > > It WILL break existing client. > > > > HTML-like way of thinking will not work here because message stanza is > > not HTML. > > > > Let me rewrite your example (skipping the attributes and adding newlines > > and whitespace for readability): > > > > <message> > > <body>Hello, > > <span>:D</span> > > . > > </body> > > </message> > > > > There is no element <span/> in the message/body schema, so unknown > > sub-element 'span' will be ignored by the client (or the whole message, > > by the more strict ones), leaving us with <body>Hello, .</body> CDATA. > > Of course there is an element <span/> It's even specified in the XEP-0071 > > Now, there is no 'rel' attribute. > But what does implementation with unknown attribute? They probably ignore > them. > The 'class' attribute can be used instead > We could define some predefined imll-* class > <body>Hello <span class="imml-emoticon">:-D</span>. </body> > > Personally i don't see the interest of the parent emoticon. What garrent > the parent emoticon actually exist. Emoticon that doesn't exist should be > rendered as text. The text of an emoticon should have enough meaning by > itself. The image is just a plus. > If the image has a meaning by itself, maybe inband image should be used > instead.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
