Le dimanche 15 octobre 2017, 13:06:43 CEST Peter Waher a écrit : > Hello > > Regarding Goffis comments: > > Content type is useful to know, as the name state, the type of a content.
I didn't say it's not useful, I just say it's a bad idea for publishing syntax. > At least we agree on this, and that is the point of the proposal. To have a > means to annotate what the content is. > > 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. > This is besides the point. One thing is to annotate, another is to agree on > what options could or should be used. But such things can evolve over time. > The proposal does not assume to suggest Markdown should be used. It's only > used as an example. No this is the point. Writing is one thing and I think the end user (or maybe the developer) should be able to choose the syntax to use. Publishing is something else and we need something well specified, reproductible, good enough for major use cases, and extensible enough for corner cases. And client developer should have to implement exactly one syntax if they want rich text, no less, no more. > Yes I have. "Terrible" is not an objective word, and you're obviously not > able to see the pros, only the cons (at least, that is what is seen in your > mail) of Markdown. You only declare what you see as negative aspects. > You're so against this particular technology, so you can't see that the > proposal is not actually about Markdown, but about annotating. If you're > against Markdown, nobody will force you do use it. The proposal is about > annotating content by those that have a need to use different content types > (representations) that what is currently presented as options in available > XEPs. Now, sufficient interest exists to have caused two proposals in this > area. The need is there. If you like Markdown or not is not relevant, since > these proposals do not use Markdown for more than as examples. I think you still don't understand that I have nothing against Markdown (again I use it, it's even the default syntax in the client I'm developing). But this is not a thing for publishing (and nothing prevent, even today, a developer to implement it in clients). And what you call annotation (which is a different problem than Markdown) is not good for publishing for the reason I have exposed. For writing it's an other story, that's why I've said it could be used for drafts for instance. > Having said this, the proposals have some differences. In the first > proposal, it's possible to include multiple different types of contents in > the same message, all to increase interoperability. It is possible to send > the same message using different content types, and allow the receiver to > select which best fits its capabilities. You resume the problem here, by implicitely saying that the more syntaxes are used for publishing, the less interoperability we have, which is exactly what I want to avoid. > Best regards, itou > Peter Waher Goffi _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
