-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I agree with Sergey. If you received XHTML-IM, then any other rich text transform ought to be disabled/bypassed.
- - m&m Matthew A. Miller <http://goo.gl/LK55L> On Aug 22, 2012, at 02:35, Sergey Dobrov wrote: > On 08/22/2012 02:31 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >> Or suggest to change *this* to <strong>this</strong> or >> <strong>*this*</strong>. > > No, the thing is that a client changes this: > > *this*<strong>that</strong> > > in the *incoming* message to this: > > <strong>this</strong><strong>that</strong> > > which is obviously wrong since a sender can make things strong without > such plain text formatting :) > >> >> On 8/21/12 2:57 AM, "Sergey Dobrov" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Btw, often implementation of XHTML-IM conflicts with internal >>> hyperlinks/smiles/plain text formatting like *this*. Maybe it will be >>> useful to add recommendation to switch any these parsers off when a >>> client have a deal with XHTML-IM message? >>> >>> On 08/01/2012 03:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> At its meeting on July 25, 2012, the XMPP Council agreed to issue a >>>> "Call for Experience" regarding XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM), in preparation for >>>> perhaps advancing this specification from Draft to Final in the XSF's >>>> standards process. To help the Council decide whether this XEP is ready >>>> to advance to a status of Final, the Council would like to gather the >>>> following information: >>>> >>>> 1. What software has implemented XEP-0071? Please note that the protocol >>>> must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (and preferably >>>> more) in order to advance from Draft to Final. >>>> >>>> 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as defined >>>> in XEP-0071? If so, please describe the problems and, if possible, >>>> suggested solutions. >>>> >>>> 3. 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. >>>> >>>> If you have any comments about advancing XEP-0071 from Draft to Final, >>>> please provide them by the close of business on Friday, August 31, 2012. >>>> After the Call for Experience, this XEP might undergo revisions to >>>> address feedback received, after which it will be presented to the XMPP >>>> Council for voting to a status of Final. >>>> >>>> You can review the specification here: >>>> >>>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html >>>> >>>> Please send all feedback to the [email protected] discussion list. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> With best regards, >>> Sergey Dobrov, >>> XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder. >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > With best regards, > Sergey Dobrov, > XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQNQngAAoJEJq6Ou0cgrSPBE8H/0p+Vd00IUsT8aXWqhcDH4sJ JXA+NntCufRkABSyKHdSpf8MBqWQySxIs09fBTPZZeB8YCecDnnWVxs6NX7fgGCQ 8e6GSR8iVO+5b76jkuoIZMxGbl3/vHmX6wuoujruCnsWmAXPfgcONZNXeaTpxMiD zMMHou+ctdJQUstA3eIBN50ckgwQOTPPqDtwSV8F3Z3rOKp6wO5fYrP2867nuLOI vhU5V1HrEVIMPfiesILgg+ckQuUrbQ6i2NcE+X+RckH9uilX3cPdXJlFOpaeaI2+ AHOEioszYLbD/yWSIOAaVLZ8USUVZbV8jAYmy6Cyu8qDfmCo9zjBTyIXFW+4kcI= =Cupk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
