On 10/12/12 4:07 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: > On 10/11/2012 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 9/27/12 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> On 7/31/12 6:43 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote: >> >>>> 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? >> >>> I think we need a broader discussion of this topic, since it caused >>> so much controversy when we first defined XHTML-IM. I will review >>> the old list discussion and more modern opinions on this topic, >>> then post to the list again. >> >> Here is the relevant business rule: >> >> ### >> >> The use of structural elements is NOT RECOMMENDED where presentational >> styles are desired, which is why very few structural elements are >> specified herein. Implementations SHOULD use appropriate 'style' >> attributes (e.g., <span style='font-weight: bold'>this is bold</span> >> and <p style='margin-left: 5%'>this is indented</p>) rather than XHTML >> structural elements (e.g., <strong/> and <blockquote/>) wherever possible. >> >> ### >> >> That now seems wrongheaded to me. Sure, *if* you just want a pretty >> presentation (say, a bit of green-colored text), then 'style' >> attributes are appropriate. However, it seems to me that if you want >> to quote something or emphasize something then using <blockquote/> or >> <em/> is the right thing to do. > > agree. It would be a nasty thing to make it impossible to grant rights > to the sender to control the styles for the recipient. > > >> >> (I also wonder why we don't support <q/> for inline quotation...) > > Yes, it seems that the set of allowed tags should be reviewed too.
Maybe. :) I'm sure we had good reasons for the limited subset we defined in 2003-2004, and I am not sure we want to reconsider every element and attribute when the XEP is so mature. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
