On 18.10.2017 19:40, Goffi wrote: > Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 19:19:53 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : >> On 18.10.2017 18:47, Goffi wrote: >>> Again allowing a protoXEP like this would mean using it as a rich syntax >>> vectore, so the issue is relevant. >> >> No, it is totally irrelevant. Please recall the situation BMH tries to >> improve: You already have the data formatted using e.g. CommonMark. >> Whether or not CommonMark supports feature X does not matter. > > Where and which clients do already put CommonMark in regular <body>? I've > never seen that, I've always had XHTML-IM when somebody wanted to put rich > text.
If you believe that clients operated by human users send BMH then please read the very first post of mine on this thread. I think a lot of confusion comes from this assumption. Maybe my arguments make then more sense to you. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
