Justin Karneges wrote: > On Monday 06 August 2007 5:33 am, Alex Jones wrote: >> On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 20:05 -0700, Justin Karneges wrote: >>> On Sunday 05 August 2007 5:11 pm, Alex Jones wrote: >>>> Hi list >>>> >>>> I am intending to make an XEP of this. Is anyone interested in helping >>>> me, as I haven't really got a clue how to write a proper specification. >>>> >>>> http://spark.us.weej.net/~alex/temp/imml.html >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>> XEP-71 (XHTML-IM), offers a subset of XHTML markup suitable for IM. This >>> should be sufficient, don't you think? >> No, for the reasons I specify in my text. > > XEP-71 is XHTML-IM, not XHTML. It is a reduced set of markup meant for IM, > with security in mind, and this is essentially what you are proposing. > > If your ideas have merit, then how about we apply them against XEP-71? For > example, if we don't want hyperlinks that trick you, we could require that > all <a> hrefs have matching uri and child text in XEP-71.
IMHO that would be a good item to add to the security considerations in XEP-0071. I think XHTML-IM pretty much does what IMML does, but in a W3C-friendly manner. If people want to support an even more reduced subset of XHTML then I have no objections. I think clients can effectively do that via XEP-0071. The baseline requirements are pretty minimal: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html#profile-summary If people want something even more minimal and texty, they could simply use Textile or some other lightweight text formatting approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_markup_languages It seems that lots of Jabber clients already support things like *bold* and /italic/ and _underline_ so perhaps that is enough... /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
