I’m sorry for the messed up quoting, but the plaintext part of these HTML emails is unusable.
On Donnerstag, 15. März 2018 16:24:58 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > Hello! > > 15.03.2018, 17:40, "Sam Whited" <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, at 02:22, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > > 1. Embedding pics into messages: ~80%. Pics are used to display memes, > as custom smilies, as parts congratulation cards, as small parts of > screenshots to explain something and so on. > > Custom smileys should probably be its own XEP, but I agree we should make > something for that at some point. Attatching images is better handled by > XEP-0066 and does not need to be a part of a message formatting spec. It's > likely that even if you don't support formatting you may want to include an > image. > > I don't think XEP-0066 suits for attaching inmages. > It provides no way to tell client softwarem that provided link contains > image. This is true and why people suggest to use SIMS instead (XEP-0385). It’s a work-in-progress. > Right now we have just <emphasis/> element whch sugested to be rendered > either bold or italic. It's up to other party's client how to render it. I > just want to be able to specify bold, italic or underlined explicitly. > Otherwice I'll be unable to have WYSIWYG in my client, won't be sure what > other party will see. Specifically using bold/italic/underline is also an antipattern. What we should provide is a way to convey emphasis, possibly in two ways (usually rendered as italic (weak) and bold (strong)). The key point is to have semantics here, which are useful for accessibility and usability. If you are doing graphics/text design/publishing with your IM client, you’re doing it wrong, in my opinion. If you need specific font styles, sizes, families etc., you should be using publishing software. Again, I’m not advocating or even suggesting that it is a good idea to give users Rich Text editing capabilities by default in an IM client. I think it would make sense to have a way to convey those messages, but also that it is probably wisest to only create them automatically. > 4. Using different fonts, font sizes and colors, for > the same as in 3 or as parts of congratulation cards: ~3%. > This is an anti-pattern. It's bad for users and bad for accessibility. There > is a reason most modern messaging systems leave it out. If I have a black > background and you send me messages with your text color set to black, I > can no longer read it. If you set your font to be tiny and I'm hard of > seeing, I can no longer read it. If you set it to be huge and I'm on my > phone, it takes up half the screen and I'm annoyed. etc. > > That's mostly abuse. Most of the features of any client could be abused. My mother certainly doesn’t think it’s abuse to set her email font to Comic Sans in orange on purple background with 18pt. For me it is still annoying, hard to read, and (one of) the reason why my client strips HTML. It hinders clean UI design a lot. > A user should have a feature, and it's up to him how to use it. If he abuses > font or color customization, other party will tell him not to do it or just > ban him that or other way. Speaking of which, please, turn HTML off when sending to the list. Thanks. > Yes. Embebbed links are useful when link itself is too long and contains no > useful information. I beleive that only human friendly content should be > displayed in the message and the technical parts (like URLs) should be > hidden. This has a bunch of security implications. See the phishing mess HTML emails have gotten us into. 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] _______________________________________________
