Le samedi 14 octobre 2017, 14:29:11 CEST Peter Waher a écrit :
> Internet Content Types have proven themselves to be a very successful method
> to promote interoperability on the web. Why it it would be just like
> "saying goodbye to the idea of interoperability" is a mystery to me.
Content type is useful to know, as the name state, the type of a content. But
in the case of rich text in a messaging app, we need to know in advance which
kind of content we can accept, and to be able to interpret it, this need a
well-known restricted choice, and a well specified syntax. If you don't have a
restricted choice, you are never sure to be able to interpret rich content.
> That you don't like Markdown is apparent ("good alternative (i.e. not
> Markdown)"), and is just a personal oppinion, which is OK. But that's not
> the point. There are now two proposals that stem from the same need: The
> desire to be more flexible when it comes to sending different types of
> content, and have an accepted (interoperable) way to annotate what content
> is being transmitted. The question the XSF needs to ask itself: Does it
> want to act as a conduit to help XMPP developers find interoperable ways to
> perform what they want to do, or should indivudual members, based on
> personal opinions, block such efforts? Just because you don't want do
> communicate Markdown, should it be permissible for you to block others who
> wants to? And a followup: Those that want to communicate Markdown, how
> should they find an interoperable manner to do so? Inside, or outside of
> the XSF?
You have obviously not read any of the previous message about it so I invite
you to do so. This has nothing to do with my "personal opinion" (I have
nothing against Markdown and I use it myself), this is about the right thing
to do with a specification to generate rich text which can be transmitted on
the wire and rendered in a reproductible way.
So I'll repeat myself one more time.
Markdown is a terrible choice because:
1) as its name state it's a writting syntax and not a publishing one. There is
not such thing as invalid Markdown (every text is valid Markdown), but the
result will differ according to rendering library used.
Even original author says that it's not a publishing format ("HTML is a
publishing format; Markdown is a writing format." cf. https://
daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax)
2) it's not specified and it's unlikely that it will be (and yes I know about
common Markdown and RFCs about the MIME type and the guidance on Mardown).
3) there a dozen of flavours, more or less (in)compatibles
4) as stated by Jonas, it's really hard to extend without side results (should
I interpret ~bla bla~ as strikethrough? Yes my librarie is doing it! Oh wait
no, it's not an official syntax, there is not strikethrough in Markdown…
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/11/05/markdown-strikethrough-slack ).
5) it's limited (no color, no strikethourgh in classic syntax)
6) official syntax allow embedding HTML, so libraries may or may not interpret
<script> as HTML, ruining the whole purpose of "changing syntax because it's
better for security".
I've repeated this a couple of times in previous emails, and I haven't seen
any of this point objected or answered.
Please keep your attack like "this is personal opinion", "you block effort"
and try to be constructive, this list is to collaborate to find the best
technical solutions to problems we are encoutering, and I have explained why
this is a really bad option and not a solution.
Cheers
Goffi
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
