Jehan wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre;2169 Wrote:
So I say that we update XEP-0071 to no longer disallow semantic markup
(in fact there's no real way to do that in XHTML Modularization
anyway!)
and encourage experimentation to see which elements people really want
to use (I think it will be mostly
Peter Saint-Andre;2169 Wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:40:49 +0200
> > Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> >
> >> Jehan wrote:
> >>> But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg
> >> And this is why xhtml-im needs to be about formatting, not
> semantics:
> >> most end use
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:40:49 +0200
Maciek Niedzielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jehan wrote:
But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg
And this is why xhtml-im needs to be about formatting, not semantics:
most end users want to get (and send) what they see. And t
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:40:49 +0200
Maciek Niedzielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jehan wrote:
> > But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg
>
> And this is why xhtml-im needs to be about formatting, not semantics:
> most end users want to get (and send) what they see. And they want
> y
Jehan wrote:
But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg
And this is why xhtml-im needs to be about formatting, not semantics:
most end users want to get (and send) what they see. And they want you
to see what they see.
--
Maciek
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
> te
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
Le mercredi 30 juillet 2008, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
> Jehan wrote:
> > Anyway for the part about semantic/structure versus style/display,
> > probably there can be discussions about this (and you already had
> > apparently), but even though I am completely partisan of structure, I
> > understo
Jehan wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre;1984 Wrote:
Please quote the entire section:
***
A user agent that implements this specification MUST conform to Section
3.5 ("XHTML Family User Agent Conformance") of Modularization of XHTML.
Many of the requirements defined therein are already met by Jabber
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:04:33 +0200
Jehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Peter Saint-Andre;1984 Wrote:
> >
> > Please quote the entire section:
> >
> > ***
> >
> > A user agent that implements this specification MUST conform to
> > Section
> >
> > 3.5 ("XHTML Family User Agent Conformance") o
Peter Saint-Andre;1984 Wrote:
>
> Please quote the entire section:
>
> ***
>
> A user agent that implements this specification MUST conform to Section
>
> 3.5 ("XHTML Family User Agent Conformance") of Modularization of XHTML.
>
> Many of the requirements defined therein are already met by J
Jehan wrote:
Hello,
I try to understand the logic of 'xhtml-im'
(http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html). Is there anyone nice
enough to explain me the following points please? :-)
1/ Section 4: > Lightweight text markup is then provided within an
element
qualified by the 'http://jabbe
Jeremy Bowers;1803 Wrote:
>
> That at least in terms of the IM users I deal with, people really *are*
> "bolding" and "italicizing". You can tell by that fact that if you
> shipped out an tag and the receiving client "chose" to interpret
> that "semantic" as coloring it bright red for emphasis,
Jehan said:
> Of course, at the end, formatted text is presented to the peer, but
> this is formatting done according to the semantic, not the opposite!
> This is always the issue when people thought the "presentation" should
> go first and then by sending a formatted text to a peer, this one
> rec
Maciek Niedzielski;1791 Wrote:
>
> On the other hand, note that - while web is mostly HTML, and this HTML
>
> needs to contain everything - XMPP is about XML.
>
And I think XMPP also can contain anything as long as you define these
things. This is why it is about semantic, not rendering ("sty
Jehan wrote:
The web is becoming more and more semantic, this would be a shame XMPP,
which is pretty new, would not be semantic...
5/ Linked to the previous point, this XEP seems to describe XMPP usage
only for IM point of view, but it has other usages now
For instance, there can be notificat
Hello,
I try to understand the logic of 'xhtml-im'
(http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html). Is there anyone nice
enough to explain me the following points please? :-)
1/ Section 4: > Lightweight text markup is then provided within an
element
> qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protoco
17 matches
Mail list logo
