On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 10:57:19 CEST Sam Whited wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 07:06, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > I am still not keen on obsoleting XHTML-IM before we have an actual > > alternative ready. I don’t think that this will achieve anything good. > > > Instead, I think that one of two things will happen: > Someone suggested in the council meeting today that these specific > > points have not been addressed, so I'd like to make a few observations: > > (a) Clients continue to implement XHTML-IM because it is the only actual > > > > way to convey markup right now (this is what I’ll do until there’s a > > replacement). > > With regards to (a), I think that is exactly what will happen, and I am > okay with that. By not obsoleting it, clients will also continue to > implement it, so this doesn't really change things either way. All we > are doing by obsoleting it is saying that we, the XSF, do not recommend > new implementations of this protocol because it has a history of > security issues. Naturally people may still implement it for > compatibility. At best we stop a few new implementations from running > into the same security issues we've seen time and time again, at worst > there is no effect, so this doesn't seem like a compelling argument for > not obsoleting before a replacement is ready to me. > > > (b) The ecosystem will fracture in islands of different, underspecified, > > > > plain-text markups put in <body/>. > > With (b) I think that's only likely to happen if the council decides to > accept multiple different formatting specs as experimental and work on > all of them in parallel. With my council hat on, I don't think that's > likely to happen.
I’m not confident that (b) is not going to happen. We are already seeing implementations massively endorsing use of some type of markup in <body/>. But I see your point and I’m not as opposed as I was before. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. > I would also be interested in a protactive measure to > prevent this, say, starting a group to come up with requirements and > eventually a spec for the next generation of formatted messages (this is > something I was already planning on proposing, I'm sure many people who > have spoken up on this list would be interested in working together > towards a single spec). I am very much interested here. Count me in. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
