Olivier Goffart;2116 Wrote: > L > It could also make use of a WIKI-like syntax >
Yes for my own, if really we are interested on client side text structuration, the wiki style is one of the best approach for technical users who don't like wysiwyg GUI, but still want to have full control of their structure. For my own, I find it very boring and slow to have to write xml tags <em> or <strong> for emphasing, whereas the wiki style is as powerful, but very fast to write (nearly no difference with unformated writing, and especially no special character like <, >, /, etc.), nice to read while still unsent, and accurate. Writing ''emphasing'' is better than writing <em>emphasing</em>!!! And lists with * or # are so "obvious", whereas <ul><ol><li> boring to write and it is easy to make a mistake of unclosed tags. But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg (they are not willing to learn formatting rules, even as obvious as wiki ones), so they don't care whether it is wiki or html "under" the skull. Therefore I guess xhtml is a good choice for the finale formatting inside the XMPP stream, because it is XML as XMPP, and wiki-style could be used client-side as an implementation choice (which would then be transformed into xhtml before sent). > > > > 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 > As for I, if I stay in the optics of pure IM (i.e. when you chat fast with people), I think the most interesting of them all are <em>, <strong>, <blockquote> (<cite> is not so useful, because when I cite stuffs mixed in my own sayings, in the context of IM, I would simply use quotes "", whereas <blockquotes> is very useful when you get a big text separated); then nice but less important are lists (<ul><ol><li>) and links (<a>). <code> is nice also but for technical people mostly (and even for technical stuffs, if I had no access to "code", I would use "blockquote" instead, so this is not so primordial). And if we get structure in a more general way (for notification, not only IM chatting), I would add all the title (<h[1-6]>) tags, and then I would add <cite> here. These are the main tags, at least as far as I am concerned. Jehan -- Jehan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911 View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=435
