Jehan said: > Of course, at the end, formatted text is presented to the peer, but > this is formatting done according to the semantic, not the opposite! > This is always the issue when people thought the "presentation" should > go first and then by sending a formatted text to a peer, this one > receives something unreadable with a completely different display that > what expected the sender, etc.
The thing about semantics is that they don't exist in a vacuum; somebody had to intend them at some point. I'd suggest that when you said in your first message: > -> You don't set text in bold or italic (which you can do with the > style attribute), you emphasize them! > -> You don't set a text with a bigger police, underline it and give it > a different police, no you set titles, subtitles, etc. That at least in terms of the IM users I deal with, people really *are* "bolding" and "italicizing". You can tell by that fact that if you shipped out an <em> tag and the receiving client "chose" to interpret that "semantic" as coloring it bright red for emphasis, you'd get a bug filed against both clients for handling "italics" wrong. And that bug report would indeed talk about "italics"; you'd never see a bug report about how "I went to emphasize some text, but..." Making up semantics where there are none is as great a crime as failing to expose them, if not greater. Sending out the presentation tags is the semantically correct thing to do in a standardized rich-text IM context. If you're not in that context, do something else; you're off the xhtml-*IM* standard anyhow. See also requirement #1 of XEP-0071: "IM clients are not XHTML clients: their primary purpose is not to read pre-existing XHTML documents, but to read and generate relatively large numbers of fairly small instant messages." ---------------------------------- Barracuda Networks makes the best spam firewalls and web filters. www.barracudanetworks.com
