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 > technical users who don't like wysiwyg GUI, but still want to have > full control of their structure. For my own, I find it very boring > and slow to have to write xml tags <em> or <strong> for emphasing, > whereas the wiki style is as powerful, but very fast to write (nearly > no difference with unformated writing, and especially no special > character like <, >, /, etc.), nice to read while still unsent, and > accurate. Writing ''emphasing'' is better than writing > <em>emphasing</em>!!! And lists with * or # are so "obvious", whereas > <ul><ol><li> boring to write and it is easy to make a mistake of > unclosed tags. > > But still for most end users, the best is wysiwyg (they are not > willing to learn formatting rules, even as obvious as wiki ones), so > they don't care whether it is wiki or html "under" the skull. > Therefore I guess xhtml is a good choice for the finale formatting > inside the XMPP stream, because it is XML as XMPP, and wiki-style > could be used client-side as an implementation choice (which would > then be transformed into xhtml before sent). >
Wiki syntax can be easily converted to html by the client. That's an implementation issue that would at best reached Best Practice status. > > > > > > > I'd be willing to relax our usage of the Text Module so that we > > > encourage more structural markup. As far as I can see, the > > > following elements would be most useful: > > > > > > blockquote > > > cite > > > em > > > q > > > strong > > > > yes. > > > > > > > In some applications I could also see an argument for: > > > > > > abbr > > > acronym > > > code > > > dfn > > > h1 through h6 > > > kbd > > > pre > > > Those are not forbidden in XHTML-IM right now, just not > > > encouraged. > > But > > > we could change that if we think it's a good idea. > > > > > > I'd say that <code> or <pre> is important too. > > > > and the <ul/><ol/><li/> are quite usefull too. > > > > Also make the style attribute not REQUIRED, because it's probably > > the most > > complicated thing to implement. > > > > And the title attribute is interesting too on <abbr/> and stuff, so > > OPTIONAL > > would be better. > > > > -- > > Olivier > > > > As for I, if I stay in the optics of pure IM (i.e. when you chat fast > with people), I think the most interesting of them all are <em>, > <strong>, <blockquote> (<cite> is not so useful, because when I cite > stuffs mixed in my own sayings, in the context of IM, I would simply > use quotes "", This is a bit of personal preference. > whereas <blockquotes> is very useful when you get a > big text separated); then nice but less important are lists > (<ul><ol><li>) and links (<a>). List may be very good for multiline messages. Links are important, they should not be IMO automatic in HTML. > <code> is nice also but for technical people mostly (and even for > technical stuffs, if I had no access to "code", I would use > "blockquote" instead, so this is not so primordial). > > And if we get structure in a more general way (for notification, not > only IM chatting), I would add all the title (<h[1-6]>) tags, and > then I would add <cite> here. > > These are the main tags, at least as far as I am concerned. > > Jehan I personally am for structure as I would be the first one to turn off styling. Now I have to turn of the whole xhtml-im stuff. Pavel -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
