Hi, On 18.05.20 14:48, Sam Whited wrote: > What would you think > about changing that language to a MAY just to make sure the idea stays > in peoples heads but so that we have softer language? The point was > supposed to be that this is an implementation and client choice.
I do think the XEP should continue to RECOMMEND displaying the styling directives or even make it a MUST. This is the only way to ensure consistency between clients and also displaying them is what non-supporting clients do, what you are supposed to type, etc. So it is very helpful to see them. And as mentioned there are false positives. One example of a false positive is "> <" kaomoji at the beginning of the line, which according to 393 is a quotation. If clients interpret it and then no longer display the ">" (as a popular Android client does), only the "<" remains, making it impossible to spot as the original kaomoji. While it has downsides that one can't use 0393 to generate "This is <b>bold</b>", but I also think this is fine. 0393 does not need to be able to handle *all* cases (and never will due to restrictions implied from using styling directives inside the body). I merely wanted to point out that 0393 does not completely fill the gap introduced by deprecating XHTML-IM and that further work is needed (for example based on 0372 and/or 0394) to get some features back that we lost on the go. Marvin _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
