On 10/11/2012 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 9/27/12 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 7/31/12 6:43 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote: > >>> I am also not sure about the <strong/> and <blockquote/> >>> elements: they are shown as a recommended element to support >>> (7.8), but the business rules (8.7) states that they should not >>> be used, but rather <span/> or <p/> with appropriate style >>> attributes. Is it only for backward compatibility, then? > >> I think we need a broader discussion of this topic, since it caused >> so much controversy when we first defined XHTML-IM. I will review >> the old list discussion and more modern opinions on this topic, >> then post to the list again. > > Here is the relevant business rule: > > ### > > The use of structural elements is NOT RECOMMENDED where presentational > styles are desired, which is why very few structural elements are > specified herein. Implementations SHOULD use appropriate 'style' > attributes (e.g., <span style='font-weight: bold'>this is bold</span> > and <p style='margin-left: 5%'>this is indented</p>) rather than XHTML > structural elements (e.g., <strong/> and <blockquote/>) wherever possible. > > ### > > That now seems wrongheaded to me. Sure, *if* you just want a pretty > presentation (say, a bit of green-colored text), then 'style' > attributes are appropriate. However, it seems to me that if you want > to quote something or emphasize something then using <blockquote/> or > <em/> is the right thing to do.
agree. It would be a nasty thing to make it impossible to grant rights to the sender to control the styles for the recipient. > > (I also wonder why we don't support <q/> for inline quotation...) Yes, it seems that the set of allowed tags should be reviewed too. > > Peter > > -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
