Jeremy Bowers;1803 Wrote: > > 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." >
Ok. Explained like this, you get a point. And now I understand the idea, and I can agree. It is not like I would prefer it for myself though, but it is understandable (when you consider most normal users). So I guess in another case, I would just use normal XHTML (for instance inside a pubsub notification event, I would not use xhtml-im, but normal xhtml). Then it answers 4/ and 5/ -> I simply was out of scope! But other points remains: especially I think 2/ is a functional bug of the XEP (at least in context of IM, it seems that you cannot use html, head and title tags). And the remaining points are questions about stuffs I am not 100% sure to understand... Jehan -- Jehan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911 View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=435
