> >>>I didn't mean that everything should be with words to be descriptive, > >>>like ":-)" itself is descriptive enough. Indeed, I would also want as > >>>much ASCII-art as possible. But for those other "expressions" (e.g. > >>>love) other things are needed and (l) (b) don't mean much to me. > >>>Suppose I'm a hardcore Windows-user and I talk to you through Jabber: > >>> > >>>I just (e) u. I also have a (i) for your project. Maybe we could discuss > >>>after a (~) or we could (b). I have some bad news, my (@) died, yeah, I > >>>know: (u) . > >>>Damn, I'm tired, well, look at the (o), I'll need some (c) , no I'll > >>>just (s) ... BTW, do not forget, it's my (^) tomorrow, hope to have good > >>>weather so (h) Anyway, I'll (t) or (m) you tomorrow. > >> > >>That's awful. If they had used [emailed] rather than (e) then it would > >>still be readable on textbased clients, and it wouldn't take any longer to > >>type on the graphical client, because they just select an icon from a > > list. > > > > Sorry to reply to my own reply, but thinking about it, I can see Mattia's > > point (I think) > > > > Why don't we come up with a Jabber "standard" list, that is text mode > > friendly, and the transports can handle the translations to annoying systems > > like MSN. (Transports are cool!) > > Yes, you see my point, thx! Because of the text mode friendlyness the > transports don't even have to handle the translations because anyone > will be able to understand it, they only won't see it graphically...
Sorry, I ment that the transports will have to do the translations when messages are sent to other IM systems. For example, if a graphical Jabber user clicks the icon with the mouse for "email", they will see the icon on their client, and when they send it to a text only Jabber client, the other client will see :email:, however if they send it to someone on MSN, the MSN transport must know to translate :email: to (e) so that native MSN clients can interpret it. (and back again when messages come from MSN to Jabber. So for this to be practical, we need to define a list of tags, and a lookup table, and convince the transport authors to implement the translation. Otherwise we are stuck with using whatever Microsoft comes up with. You see? > Michael, you proposed [email] instead of (e), but I should take :email: > over [emailed]. Why? Well, I live in Belgium and I've got an azerty > keyboard where the "[" and "]" are in a quiet unreachable position (and > I need the <Alt Gr> key) and I think the ":" will be easy reachable with > every keyboard. Conclusion: I can type :email: much faster than [email] That's fine by me, but I don't really understand... I would have thought the harder to type the better, since it is less likely to be used in normal conversation. If you are using a graphical client then you will not be typing emoticons, but selecting them from a menu (is this right? - I have never used them), and if you are the type of person that prefers to use a text only client, the chances are you think emoticons are a stupid idea and won't bother using them anyway. Michael. _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
