Richard Dobson wrote:
I dont know but that is what the person was suggesting
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Why would you want to put inline x elements
Dave wrote:
Julian Fitzell wrote:
like we're going in circles here. I don't think you need to take it as
a personal attack that others are arguing against your proposal... but
I do need to take it as a personal attack.
sigh Fine. whatever.
1) I don't like html-ish tags being stuck
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tijl Houtbeckers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:17 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
And I'd love having a simple X
element telling that the current message should
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
I don't think the Jabber protocol itself should define that standard
set. Rather, we should let individual Web repositories
Reply inline:
- Dave
Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
Hi dave,
I've read almost all your posts on this subject,
Wow ... I'm impressed :-)
and though you make an intresting
point that XML is a much more flexible system for embedding all kinds of information
in your messages I still think your
: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Also why mention web browsers, jabber is not a web browser ???
Jabber clients that download images off the 'net had better be (or be
able to talk to) web browsers
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
If people insist on refusing to accept English as a standard
: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
It may be silly for a Jabber client to be a Web browser, but the
standard OOB method in Jabber is HTTP, so any Jabber client that wants
to support file transfer already is a Web browser. It may be silly
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Modifying a processor to interpret URNs instead of URLs is no biggie
Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tijl Houtbeckers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:17 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
And I'd love having a simple X
element telling that the current message should not be parsed
:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Also why mention web browsers, jabber is not a web browser ???
Jabber clients that download images off the 'net had better
Richard Dobson wrote:
I dont know but that is what the person was suggesting
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Why would you want to put inline x
Reply inline:
- Dave
Julian Fitzell wrote:
Dave wrote:
Julian Fitzell wrote:
like we're going in circles here. I don't think you need to take it as
a personal attack that others are arguing against your proposal... but
I do need to take it as a personal attack.
sigh Fine.
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
I don't think the Jabber protocol itself should define that standard
set
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
It may be silly for a Jabber client to be a Web browser, but the
standard OOB method in Jabber is HTTP, so any Jabber client that wants
to support file transfer already is a Web browser. It may be silly,
but it's true ;-)
- Dave
: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
It may be silly for a Jabber client to be a Web browser, but the
standard OOB method in Jabber is HTTP, so any Jabber client that wants
to support file transfer already is a Web browser
If I can make a suggestion:
I would look back at the room logs for the JDEV conference room over
the last week, where there has been many discussions on this topic
looking at many different angles, including a whole evenings worth. Adam
Theo (theoretic.com) has also set up a wiki page
Dave wrote:
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
[...]
Of course you would, it doesnt mean you are right, emoticons are a client
feature and should have the ability to be turned off, which in your method
they cant be without turning off all embedded images,
Well-authored IMG
Dave wrote:
Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_
messages instead of the other's? That should even things a bit ;-)
- Dave
If we're going to start counting here, you can put me down for another
one against - I don't like sending img tags in the message.
When sending a message to a property-IM system like MSN, the client can
ofcourse
detect this and adapt emoticons accordingly (same for receiving), but
again, this is a
decision that's in the hands of the client developers.
This should be done at the transport level I think. Users on
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:21:22PM -0400, Dave wrote:
That was my other original idea (take a peek at my first post on this
subject, a few days ago). However, the sender may want a little more
control over the interpretation of his message, and having the receiving
client decide those
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
When sending the icons, via some method, to a remote client. Who should
be responsible for checking that the images don't
Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_
messages instead of the other's? That should even things a bit ;-)
- Dave
If we're going to start counting here, you can put me down for another
one against
I'm a for :)
1) I don't like html-ish tags being stuck
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_
messages instead of the other's? That should even things a bit
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_
messages instead of the other's
Hello,
I don't believe it is, for a number of reasons
* In order to do this, the transport would have to scan and rewrite
every message passing both into the jabber network and out of it.
Imagine this on a high traffic transport, such as on jabber.org.
* If the client performs the
Uh, yeah ... I guess we can reimplement the functionality provided
by HTML with our own invention. Because we're not constrained by
two companies trying to outdo each other with the industry voting on
standards, we may even be able to beat HTML at its own game. Hmm. . .
I dunno ... maybe. . .
Reply inline:
- Dave
Thomas Parslow (PatRat) wrote:
Okay, now before you read my response to a previous message (which
answers all your concerns), can anybody come up with any more problems
with the HTML IMG tag approach? That was certainly a rather major salvo
of bashing you folks
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
also there is no way
of stopping the sending person from sending them
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
also those sort of devices can currently display .png or
.gif, only .wbmp
If we want emoticons to be a distinct entity which is _not_ the same
as images, the correct way to do it in XML is to define a namespace and
use elements of the appropriate types. Telling clients that they must
mangle the actual text returned by the XML parser in order to figure out
what text
Yup, I just read through all of the above, and now I'm beginning to think
that maybe Jabber shouldn't implement emoticons at all. People send
emoticon-containing emails even though plain-text email doesn't support
'em directly; why should IM?
That said, I _would_ ask the transports to translate
...so I take it your vote would go for a proper XML-based approach?
- Dave
Mattias Campe wrote:
Dave wrote:
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
[...]
Of course you would, it doesnt mean you are right, emoticons are a client
feature and should have the ability to
Julian Fitzell wrote: Dave wrote:Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here
... how about if one of you echoes _my_messages instead of the
other's? That should even things a bit ;-)- Dave
If we're going to start counting here, you can put me down for another
one against - I don't like
to the the appropriate word in their language for the
file name, or who have previously done that and do not want to change it
all.
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons
Reply inline:
- Dave
Note: I'm in almost complete agreement, so you may not want to bother
reading this message if you're short on time.
Dave Turner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:21:22PM -0400, Dave wrote:
That was my other original idea (take a peek at my first post on this
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_
messages
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_
messages instead of the other's? That should even things a bit ;-)
- Dave
If we're going to start counting here, you can put me
Reply inline:
- Dave
David Sutton wrote:
Hello,
I don't believe it is, for a number of reasons
* In order to do this, the transport would have to scan and rewrite
every message passing both into the jabber network and out of it.
Imagine this on a high traffic transport, such as
Why would you want to put inline x elements in the xhtml segment???
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julian Fitzell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Thats much
Hi dave,
I've read almost all your posts on this subject, and though you make an intresting
point that XML is a much more flexible system for embedding all kinds of information
in your messages I still think your approach to the subject is way to heavy..
Though you came with a variaty of
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
any means it is part of the wap standards, I said all of this because
your
I happen to hate the WAP standards, but that's neither
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Also why mention web browsers, jabber is not a web browser ???
Jabber clients that download images off the 'net had better
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
If people insist on refusing to accept English as a standard language
even for filenames, they'll have an awful lot
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Modifying a processor to interpret URNs instead of URLs is no biggie.
Besides, we can always just use relative URLs, and scratch
I dont know but that is what the person was suggesting
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Why would you want to put inline x elements in the xhtml segment
I don't think the Jabber protocol itself should define that standard
set. Rather, we should let individual Web repositories develop, each
with its own set of emoticons. If j.o is the first one, there will
be an incentive for any new ones to be compatible with it. However,
there are plenty of
Hello,
The thing is that in order to use one of these transports, you must
have subscribed to it, and the transport will have informed your client
exactly which protocol it will encapsulate for. Your client, therefore,
knows exactly which protocol the end client is using.
In regards to
Yep good idea, although I like the idea of sending along info about
emoticons that are actually used in a message so they can be turned on and
off incase (0) is defined as an emoticon (like in msn) but someone wants to
send a snippet of code and not have a bit converted to an emoticon.
It could
I thought about it a bit (hmm, actually a lot ;) ) and I started to like
the idea. So to reduce the overhead the message could be sth. like:
message type=chat to=[EMAIL PROTECTED] from=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bodyThis is a emoticon containing message :) (L) ;) :D/body
x xmlns=jabber:x:econ
econ
snip
Thats all good in theory but what about people who are behind firewalls and
proxy's?
And what about the unneccessary bandwidth it takes up, not just in the xml
but having to download those images, for something like emoticons isnt it
better just to have a way of defining that something
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
As you all saw, my initial proposal was purely receiver-based (i.e.,
the receiving program converted anything interesting-looking into
an icon), but it looks to me like you're all trying to figure out some
standard way of integrating
LOL ... people tend to get way to concerned about privacy, IMHO :-(
Anyway, the same thing I said about getting around firewalls happens to
avoid exposing your IP addy, so I guess all our privacy advocates won't
be using their clients' internal repositories. (Maybe privacy-conscious
clients
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:17:24AM -0400, Dave wrote:
People who are behind firewalls and proxies can upload their favorite
emoticons to GeoCities, and have their clients put in references to
there automatically.
That sounds like a pain in the rear from the users' point of view.
I actually
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Reply inline:
- Dave
People who are behind firewalls and proxies can upload their favorite
emoticons to GeoCities, and have
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
LOL ... people tend to get way to concerned about privacy, IMHO :-(
Anyway, the same thing I said about getting around
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Richard Dobson wrote:
Also hosting the emoticons on j.o servers will waste lots of j.o's
bandwidth when it does not need to be.
I bet there are users and/or client developers who want to customize their
emoticons... my smiley shall look different from yours... ;-) so no
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Richard Dobson wrote:
Also hosting the emoticons on j.o servers will waste lots of j.o's
bandwidth when
Message -
From: Thomas Parslow (PatRat) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Richard Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
It also allows the sender to determine the receivers IP address (if
they retrieve the image) which
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
Okay, now before you read my response to a previous message (which
answers all your concerns), can anybody come up with any more problems
with the HTML IMG tag approach? That was certainly a rather major salvo
of bashing you folks put up ;-P
- Dave
It's just way more complicated then it
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
Reply inline:
- Dave
Dave Turner wrote:
--MIdTMoZhcV1D07fI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:17:24AM -0400, Dave wrote:
People who are behind firewalls and proxies can
Dave wrote:
As you all saw, my initial proposal was purely receiver-based (i.e.,
the receiving program converted anything interesting-looking into
an icon), but it looks to me like you're all trying to figure out some
standard way of integrating non-text elements into messages :-(
In that case,
Okay, now before you read my response to a previous message (which
answers all your concerns), can anybody come up with any more problems
with the HTML IMG tag approach? That was certainly a rather major salvo
of bashing you folks put up ;-P
Well if you want my opinion, it's simply too much for
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Reply inline:
- Dave
People who are behind firewalls and proxies can
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
also there is no way
of stopping the sending person from sending them in the xml in the first
place,
How about sending:
message
Reply inline:
- Dave
Richard Dobson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
LOL ... people tend to get way to concerned about privacy, IMHO
Reply inline:
- Dave
David Iodice wrote:
here's something to ponder:
Oh, no ... not _another thing_ to ponder ... please ... I'm already busy
pondering Mr. Dobson's assault on HTTP IMG tags ;-/
emoticons can be viewed as a special case of a more generic
capability. Let's call it
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
also those sort of devices can currently display .png or
.gif, only .wbmp, should these be not allowed to use emoticons? No
everyone
-- Original Message --
Reply inline:
- Dave
That's a legitimate complaint - HTML is too generalized if all you want
is a small set of standardized emoticons. However, the buck won't stop
there, and I can guarantee you that much.
Well, if you want to send your emoticons as
: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Richard Dobson wrote:
Also hosting the emoticons on j.o servers will waste lots of j.o's
bandwidth when it does not need to be.
I bet there are users and/or client developers who want to customize their
emoticons... my
you don't have to :-)
Mattias Campe wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mattias Campe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday,
April 18, 2002 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Richard Dobson wrote:
Well what about creating a new x
sure, they are used to describe an action, rather than a statement within
a conversation. They serve the exact same purpose as emoticons; to try to
increase the number of mechanisms for expression within a medium without
voice or body language / visual cues.
-David Waite
Michael Brown
Ok, but I still don't understand how typing:
/me does something
has any advantages over typing
bob does something
given that I know my name is bob. Is the whole point to change the colour
of bob?
sure, they are used to describe an action, rather than a statement within a
conversation.
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Richard Dobson wrote:
Well what about creating a new x element for message which allows people
to
define emoticon text replacements e.g.
message type=chat to=[EMAIL PROTECTED
Some clients (Gabber, JabberIM and plugMarvin/plug) support IRC
style /me emotes as in:
/me does some emoting
which would be shown in a different color as:
* tom does some emoting
I've never really used IRC...can someone tell me what the point of these
are? I've always wondered. For
Ok, but I still don't understand how typing:
/me does something
has any advantages over typing
bob does something
given that I know my name is bob. Is the whole point to change the colour
of bob?
It also removes the Bob: that would precede all other messages and
sets it apart,
Richard Dobson wrote:
Yes it does mean that the client has to support this x element, it means
that it works fine with clients that dont support it, this method also
allows the message sender complete control of where and when the emoticons
are displayed, so the message will be displayed as the
- Original Message - From: Mattias Campe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday,
April 18, 2002 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Richard Dobson wrote:
Well what about creating a new x element for message which
allows people
At least in a one-on-one chat, the other difference is that most
clients will use the nick that the receiver has for that contact, not
the name that the sender uses for himself.
So, if I know myself as hildjj, and you have set a nickname for me
that is JoeH, when I type:
/me waves
You see:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 03:45:52PM +1000, Michael Brown wrote:
| | Otherwise we are stuck with using whatever Microsoft comes up with. You
| | see?
|
| No, I don't see (continue below)
|
| | and if you are the type of person that prefers to use a
| | text only client, the chances are you
dman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:57:07AM +0200, Mattias Campe wrote:
...
| I personally think that the representation of an emoticon should be
| descriptive, because it could be that people use a non-emoticon client
| (e.g. they find all those emoticons overhead). So instead of (l)
Dave wrote:
There are a number of Web pages outlining standard emoticons. What's wrong with
simply using them?
Dave Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Motto: Don't invent stuff you don't have to :-)
I like the standard emoticons like :-) :D 8-) They are descriptive
themselves, but I hate ones
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
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
This is related vaguely to emoticons. It is also a client issue, but I
figured it was worth a post.
We are implementing jabber for our company, and some others and a
somewhat frequently requested feature has been a 'hot key' or quick
response capability.
When someone is busy, (perhaps on the
Michael Brown wrote:
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 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
That's what acronyms are for. :) BRB (be right back), OTP (on the phone),
etc. Your hip company just needs to get with the lingo. ;)
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/
On 18 Apr 2002, Duncan Shannon wrote:
This is related
Michael Brown wrote:
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
sometimes), and of course the
replacement list will only contain emoticons actually used in the message.
My 2p
Richard
- Original Message -
From: David Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
Michael
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 09:09:57AM +0200, Mattias Campe wrote:
| dman wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:57:07AM +0200, Mattias Campe wrote:
| ...
| | I personally think that the representation of an emoticon should be
| | descriptive, because it could be that people use a non-emoticon client
Michael Brown wrote:
[...]
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
Sorry, this had just been said...
Lise
- Original Message -
From: Lise Meyer /LEA/TEC/ENG/INT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
An idea could be to insert emoticons in an extension of the message
Richard Dobson wrote:
Well what about creating a new x element for message which allows people to
define emoticon text replacements e.g.
message type=chat to=[EMAIL PROTECTED] from=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bodyThis is a emoticon containing message :) (L) ;) :D/body
x
It seems that the whole point to things like :) in the first place is
that they're shorter than typing (smiling). Even if there was an
emoticon :smiley:, I would still type :) because it's short and well-known.
I vote we make a list of all abbreviations and symbols and provide free
sets of
Heh. Im with you, however those old dogs that need to learn new tricks
are not!
I know you are just giving me a hard time here... but when it gets to be
time to get a new 'older' user (ie ceo, vp, director of something) it
can be quite the ride to get them to instant message first of all... All
Mattias Campe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I personally think that the representation of an emoticon should b
descriptive, because it could be that people use a non-emoticon client
(e.g. they find all those emoticons overhead). So instead of (l) (MSN
example) we could use :love: Because I think I
is there anyway currently for clients to actually send traditional
'emotes'? perhaps i have not run across a client that supports it or
something simular. i can see this very lacking with irc-jabber if so.
---
Gabriel Millerd|The sticker on the side of the box said Supported
SysAdmin,
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
