> here's something to ponder: > emoticons can be viewed as a special case of a more generic > capability. Let's call it "jabsters" (c). In essence a > jabster is a textual description that has a meaning > different from the text itself -- a "short cut" if you will. > Emoticons are one example, all of the other little acronyms > like BTW, IANAL, TIA, RTFM are short cuts too (but they > aren't emoticons). If I type BTW, what can't it come up as > "By the way" on the other client?
> I suggest that we have a more generalized format to > accommodate other short-cut uses. We also need a mechanism > to identify which jabster "sets" are available on each > client (a capabilities exchange). We don't want one person > typing LOL on a client assuming it will come out as > "laughing out loud" and the other client uses a different > jabster set that translates LOL to "lots of luck". > A more esoteric application can be for the non-tradition IM, > like from human-to-device. Perhaps I want to IM my coffee > machine and say "Turn On". The coffee machine could see > this as a jabster and translate it to the relevant command > string for the device. Here the jabster is a translation > from a human readable command to a device command. > Similar to emoticons? I think so. So when we finalize how > we want to handle emoticons, lets also think about the more > generic case and perhaps cover it, too while we are at it. I'd find that sort of thing incredibly annoying (ok, I also find emoticons annoying but this would be more so:). If I write "BTW" I probably want the user at the other end to see "BTW". Maybe if I'm lazy (which I am;) I might appreciate some sort of auto complete in my client but it would just be a pain if the remote client went and changed what I'd written. Thomas Parslow (PatRat) E-Mail/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 26359483 _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
