> Is the text of XEP-0071 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples > needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate? Have > developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any > suggestions you have for improving the text.
7.6 states that the style attribute MUST be supported, but 7.6.1 on the other hand shows a list of RECOMMENDED CSS1 properties. If a client does not implement any of those properties, isn’t it the same as dropping the style attribute (and therefore not supporting it)? I am also not sure about the <strong/> and <blockquote/> elements: they are shown as a recommended element to support (7.8), but the business rules (8.7) states that they should not be used, but rather <span/> or <p/> with appropriate style attributes. Is it only for backward compatibility, then? There is the matter of the <img/> tag that accepts a data:base64 as a src, leading to very big stanzas. I think that maybe the XEP could state that whenever possible, the use of base64 data should be avoided, at least in MUCs, where the message is replicated as many times as there are users, leading to high bandwith usage (although if I remember correctly, most servers set the max stanza size to 10 KiB). Finally, although we have a somehow working partial implementation of XEP-0071 in Poezio, I wouldn’t count it as a proper codebase for XEP validation, because the limitations of console clients do not allow a full implementation (e.g. font changes, text-decorations other than underline, relative margins, etc). -- Mathieu Pasquet (mathieui)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
