On 7 November 2017 at 18:29, Jonas Wielicki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Montag, 6. November 2017 11:58:15 CET Sam Whited wrote: >> URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/styling.html > > This XEP is incompatible with *sending* clients (be they human or automated) > which are not aware of it. I strongly advocate for an opt-in mechanism (at > which point this is the rejected Body Markup Hints ProtoXEP, but with a custom > markup) on each message; if that’s not gonna find consensus, I think an opt- > out mechanism is the least which must be done. >
I agree that a simplified BMH is the right path here. > I also still think that this XEP mixes input conventions with wire format in a > very unfortunate way. In the spirit of "complaining about things this XEP is > not trying to be is not going to help anyone", I am currently preparing a > another ProtoXEP. And I look forward to it. But I think we may then end up with multipart/alternative, and I'm not wholly sure I want that. * The content fork concept has proven a bit of a pain in email, whereas "subtle" formatting, like format-flowed, has worked very well. * We double the size of messages, by writing everything twice. * Such a design more or less requires content negotiation, which is a fine thing, but basically fails in MUC and similar cases. * By writing everything twice, we double the size of messages. Dave. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
