I am going to repeat what I said on xsf@ a bit. On 2017/10/16, Florian Schmaus wrote: > So the case for BMH are things like > - Bots sending potential large status information, where there's a > desire to bring some structure into that information by using a markup > language
This can be achieved with XHTML-IM already. > - Bridges sending textual content which is already formatted using a > certain markup language to an XMPP client (guess who is currently > writing on a discourse to XMPP bridge *cough* *cough*) This can also be achieved with XHTML-IM. The bridge developer would know what markup is being used on the other side, and could translate it directly for each client, thus sparing clients from each having flawed/vulnerable implementations. > It was pointed out that this could also be achieved with XHTML-IM, which > is, of course, true. > But not every client implements XHTML-IM. Not every client implements $MARKUP. > And there are the security implications of XHTML-IM. This is being discussed on another thread, though, how does that compare to vulnerable markdown implementations? Thanks, -- Maxime “pep” Buquet
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
