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") of Modularization of
> > XHTML.
> >
> > Many of the requirements defined therein are already met by Jabber
> > clients simply because they already include XML parsers.
> >
> > However, "ignore" has a special meaning in XHTML modularization
> > (different from its meaning in XMPP). Specifically, criteria 4
> > through 6
> > of Section 3.5 of Modularization of XHTML state:
> >
> > 4.
> >
> > W3C TEXT: If a user agent encounters an element it does not
> > recognize, it must continue to process the children of that
> > element. If
> >
> > the content is text, the text must be presented to the user.
> >
> > XSF COMMENT: This behavior is different from that defined by
> > XMPP
> > Core, and in the context of XHTML-IM implementations applies only to
> > XML
> > elements qualified by the 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' namespace
> > as defined herein. This criterion MUST be applied to all XHTML 1.0
> > elements
> > except those explicitly included in XHTML-IM as described in the
> > XHTML-IM Integration Set and Recommended Profile sections of this
> > document. Therefore, an XHTML-IM implementation MUST process all
> > XHTML
> >
> > 1.0 child elements of the XHTML-IM <html/> element even if such
> > child elements are not included in the XHTML 1.0 Integration Set
> > defined herein, and MUST present to the recipient the XML character
> > data contained in such child elements.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > > What I understand is
> > > that when I encounter a tag which I recognize as being xhtml, but
> > which
> > > is not in the xhtml-im subset, then I must display it "as is"?
> >
> > Let's say you receive this:
> >
> > <html><body><p>I like the Extensible Messaging and Presence
> > Protocol (<abbr>XMPP</abbr>).</p></body></html>
> >
> > In this case you would display the XML character data of the
> > <abbr/> element even though it's not part of the XHTML-IM
> > integration set.
> >
> > That's just one example.
> >
> > /psa
>
> Sorry I did not understand (or at least as much as the original).
>
> So when you write to "display the XML character data", you mean that
> you just dump the tag element, and display its content ("XMPP") ?
> So you display this:
> > I like the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
>
> This would look natural to me (and I think to have understood this is
> also how the W3C recommends it for the core xhtml .
>
> Or do you mean that you display the unknown (in xhtml-im subset) tag
> element itself to the simple user view, so this:
> > I like the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
> > (<abbr>XMPP</abbr>)
>
> So one will see unprocessed tag (and if the user does not know what is
> xhtml, it would look like strange unknown words)...
>
> I am sorry if I don't understand this... That's probably about word
> definition here where I am not sure about what you call the XML
> character data of an element:
> 1/ character data in XML being the "normal" text between the tag
> elements;
That's it.
> 2/ or character data as a graphical character/pictogram in an alphabet
> (what we call a "character set" in computer science)?
> Thanks.
>
> Jehan
>
> P.S.: for the rest of my questions, thanks for the answers. I guess I
> shall read and try and understand the concept of modularization of
> xhtml, as you suggest. :-)
>
> 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
> understood well the two points here which are that this XEP is for IM,
> and that normal users cannot be asked to think about structure when
> they just care about style.
>
> Yet just to answer shortly about this point:
> > > The style should come from the meaning of the tag, like in the
> > > web!
> >
> > How so? Remember that we don't have external CSS here.
>
> In case where structure would have been chosen above style (even
> though, as I remind, I understand now why style is chosen in IM),
> there may be a small CSS just for the few available tags in xhtml-im
> on client side (then a user could even modify their personal CSS).
>
>
I cannot talk for XHTML-IM as it's the first thing I turn off. But I
generally like the idea of using <em> and <strong> and similar for
structural markup even in instant messaging.
It's markup vs. styling. I particularly dislike any styling... as this
will be often misused to put bright colors or fancy fonts into the
chatrooms which is annoying and...
If you see it... it's bad.
If you don't, you can't kick the people for huge font sizes, big fancy
pictures. For me xhtml-im is just a headache.
But... if I could disable the styling and use it for murkup like
emphasizing, links or even structuring short documents (e.g. for single
messages), I might be even using it (at least passively).
So... I perfectly understand your point but it seems to be different
from the ideas incomporated to the XEP.
Cheers,
Pavel
--
Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net
