Ian Paterson wrote: > Alex Jones wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 13:21 +0100, Ian Paterson wrote: >> >>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>> >>>> If we just add another tag to explicitly mark emoticons - and remove >>>> the implicit rendering completely - then Alex's baseline >>>> requirements should be done with IM-XHTML itself ? >>>> >>> Yes. This would be backward compatible too since, IIRC, XHTML parsers >>> should ignore tags they don't understand (and the tag would be >>> qualified by a namespace other than 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' >>> anyway). >>> >> >> I feel it shouldn't be a part of XHTML-IM though. I think there is a >> need to use icons that is independent of the need to use even the most >> minimal, valid support of XHTML-IM. >> > > Well, RFC 3921 states that "the <body/> element MUST NOT contain mixed > content". > > And I agree with Michal that we should avoid including three copies of > the message in each stanza. So it seems that the only place for the new > emoticon tags is inside the XHTML-IM (under a different namespace). > > Furthermore, it would be complicated to write the code to display both > XHTML and emoticon elements if they are kept separate. Whereas it is > trivial to write the code to ignore the one or the other if they are > merged.
+1. See also: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html#w3c-conformance /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
