Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints

2017-10-17 Thread Peter Waher
Hello Florian > On 14.10.2017 11:59, Peter Waher wrote: > > Hello > > > > A year and a half ago I proposed a XEP: "Content Types in Messages" [1], > > solving the issue of describing and annotating what type of content is > > sent in messages. At the time, many objected, since they did not see the

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-17 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 14.10.2017 11:59, Peter Waher wrote: > Hello > > A year and a half ago I proposed a XEP: "Content Types in Messages" [1], > solving the issue of describing and annotating what type of content is > sent in messages. At the time, many objected, since they did not see the > value of this annotatio

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-16 Thread Goffi
Le dimanche 15 octobre 2017, 13:06:43 CEST Peter Waher a écrit : > Hello > > Regarding Goffis comments: > > Content type is useful to know, as the name state, the type of a content. I didn't say it's not useful, I just say it's a bad idea for publishing syntax. > At least we agree on this, and

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-15 Thread Peter Waher
Hello Regarding Goffis comments: > Content type is useful to know, as the name state, the type of a content. At least we agree on this, and that is the point of the proposal. To have a means to annotate what the content is. > But in the case of rich text in a messaging app, we need to know in

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-14 Thread Goffi
Le samedi 14 octobre 2017, 16:57:09 CEST Denver Gingerich a écrit : > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 04:05:10PM +0200, Goffi wrote: > > Markdown is a terrible choice because: > > > > 1) as its name state it's a writting syntax and not a publishing one. > > There is not such thing as invalid Markdown (eve

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-14 Thread Denver Gingerich
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 04:05:10PM +0200, Goffi wrote: > Markdown is a terrible choice because: > > 1) as its name state it's a writting syntax and not a publishing one. There > is > not such thing as invalid Markdown (every text is valid Markdown), but the > result will differ according to ren

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-14 Thread Goffi
Le samedi 14 octobre 2017, 14:29:11 CEST Peter Waher a écrit : > Internet Content Types have proven themselves to be a very successful method > to promote interoperability on the web. Why it it would be just like > "saying goodbye to the idea of interoperability" is a mystery to me. Content type

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-14 Thread Peter Waher
Hello Goffi Internet Content Types have proven themselves to be a very successful method to promote interoperability on the web. Why it it would be just like "saying goodbye to the idea of interoperability" is a mystery to me. That you don't like Markdown is apparent ("good alternative (i.e. no

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-14 Thread Goffi
Le samedi 14 octobre 2017, 11:59:17 CEST Peter Waher a écrit : > Hello > > A year and a half ago I proposed a XEP: "Content Types in Messages" [1], > solving the issue of describing and annotating what type of content is sent > in messages. At the time, many objected, since they did not see the va

[Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints.

2017-10-14 Thread Peter Waher
Hello A year and a half ago I proposed a XEP: "Content Types in Messages" [1], solving the issue of describing and annotating what type of content is sent in messages. At the time, many objected, since they did not see the value of this annotation. Now, the interest seems to have been awakened