On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:49:05 +0200
Jehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olivier Goffart;2116 Wrote:
> > L
> > It could also make use of a WIKI-like syntax
> >
>
> Yes for my own, if really we are interested on client side text
> structuration, the wiki style is one of the best approach for
> technical users who don't like wysiwyg GUI, but still want to have
> full control of their structure. For my own, I find it very boring
> and slow to have to write xml tags or for emphasing,
> whereas the wiki style is as powerful, but very fast to write (nearly
> no difference with unformated writing, and especially no special
> character like <, >, /, etc.), nice to read while still unsent, and
> accurate. Writing ''emphasing'' is better than writing
> emphasing!!! And lists with * or # are so "obvious", whereas
> boring to write and it is easy to make a mistake of
> unclosed tags.
>
> But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg (they are not
> willing to learn formatting rules, even as obvious as wiki ones), so
> they don't care whether it is wiki or html "under" the skull.
> Therefore I guess xhtml is a good choice for the finale formatting
> inside the XMPP stream, because it is XML as XMPP, and wiki-style
> could be used client-side as an implementation choice (which would
> then be transformed into xhtml before sent).
>
Wiki syntax can be easily converted to html by the client. That's an
implementation issue that would at best reached Best Practice status.
> >
> >
> > > I'd be willing to relax our usage of the Text Module so that we
> > > encourage more structural markup. As far as I can see, the
> > > following elements would be most useful:
> > >
> > > blockquote
> > > cite
> > > em
> > > q
> > > strong
> >
> > yes.
> >
> >
> > > In some applications I could also see an argument for:
> > >
> > > abbr
> > > acronym
> > > code
> > > dfn
> > > h1 through h6
> > > kbd
> > > pre
> > > Those are not forbidden in XHTML-IM right now, just not
> > > encouraged.
> > But
> > > we could change that if we think it's a good idea.
> >
> >
> > I'd say that or is important too.
> >
> > and the are quite usefull too.
> >
> > Also make the style attribute not REQUIRED, because it's probably
> > the most
> > complicated thing to implement.
> >
> > And the title attribute is interesting too on and stuff, so
> > OPTIONAL
> > would be better.
> >
> > --
> > Olivier
> >
>
> As for I, if I stay in the optics of pure IM (i.e. when you chat fast
> with people), I think the most interesting of them all are ,
> , ( is not so useful, because when I cite
> stuffs mixed in my own sayings, in the context of IM, I would simply
> use quotes "",
This is a bit of personal preference.
> whereas is very useful when you get a
> big text separated); then nice but less important are lists
> () and links ().
List may be very good for multiline messages.
Links are important, they should not be IMO automatic in HTML.
> is nice also but for technical people mostly (and even for
> technical stuffs, if I had no access to "code", I would use
> "blockquote" instead, so this is not so primordial).
>
> And if we get structure in a more general way (for notification, not
> only IM chatting), I would add all the title () tags, and
> then I would add here.
>
> These are the main tags, at least as far as I am concerned.
>
> Jehan
I personally am for structure as I would be the first one to turn off
styling. Now I have to turn of the whole xhtml-im stuff.
Pavel
--
Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net
