Le mercredi 30 juillet 2008, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit : > Jehan wrote: > > Anyway for the part about semantic/structure versus style/display, > > probably there can be discussions about this (and you already had > > apparently), but even though I am completely partisan of structure, I > > understood well the two points here which are that this XEP is for IM, > > and that normal users cannot be asked to think about structure when they > > just care about style.
I am also partisent of the structure. Currently, most client supporting HTML-IM are just focussed on the style, providing a toolbar with colors/fonts .... This can be nice for few fancy stuff, but a more interesting thing is to emphase the text. A better approach would be to have a toolbar with sementic buttons such as 'emphasis', 'code', 'citation'. It could also make use of a WIKI-like syntax > I'd be willing to relax our usage of the Text Module so that we > encourage more structural markup. As far as I can see, the following > elements would be most useful: > > blockquote > cite > em > q > strong yes. > In some applications I could also see an argument for: > > abbr > acronym > code > dfn > h1 through h6 > kbd > pre > Those are not forbidden in XHTML-IM right now, just not encouraged. But > we could change that if we think it's a good idea. I'd say that <code> or <pre> is important too. and the <ul/><ol/><li/> are quite usefull too. Also make the style attribute not REQUIRED, because it's probably the most complicated thing to implement. And the title attribute is interesting too on <abbr/> and stuff, so OPTIONAL would be better. -- Olivier
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
