On 16.10.2017 22:40, Sam Whited wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 15:30, 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 > > In this particular case it seems like we'd be creating a huge potential > for incompatibility between clients. If half the worlds bots support > restructured text and half support markdown, certainly clients only work > well with certain bots.
I think they all will work fine together. > I'd be curious to hear a bit about how that > could be mitigated if you have anything in mind. Please see below. >> - 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*) > > In this case, what do you expect the client or service receiving the > message from the bridge to do with it? Would it render the markup > generated by Discourse? In that case, see my previous question about > compatibility and fragmentation among clients. One assumption of BMH, which I should have made clearer, is that you use only markup languages which are reasonably readable when treated as plain text. The philosophy is that BMHs are really just hints: Either receiving clients make use of them or don't. Or they don't understand them at all. Not matter what they are still able to process the message. Another assumption is that there is a bunch of CommonMark, reStructuredText, … formatted data out there, and that the amount of such data flowing through the XMPP network will increase. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
