I think there might be a difference between sending a message with a reference to an image (or other external item), like an email attachment, and putting one inline like an HTML mail made of images. (Please let’s elide the technicalities of how the multipart structure for email’s constructed!)
Which is it that we want to address here? /K > On 25 Aug 2015, at 21:03, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot <linkma...@linkmauve.fr> wrote: > > Hi, > > There has been many clients lately, like Conversations, Gajim or Movim, > striving for a richer experience for IM, with the embedding of HTTP[0] > images right into the discussion. > > Their current way is pretty terrible, they just put the URL in the body > of the message, and the receiving client will download and display it > if there is no other text than the URL. > > XHTML-IM[1] is perfect for that usecase, but I was thinking about > extending it with what people expect to be able to exchange nowadays, > namely images, audio clips and videos. > > The HTML5 specification[2] defines a few elements that didn’t exist by > the time XHTML-IM got specified, namely <audio/>, <video/> and > <picture/> , which allow one to embed most usual multimedia files, and > <source/> for content-type and resolution negociation, all of those > make a lot of sense together in clients allowing sharing of multimedia > files. > > XHTML-IM being a draft standard, I think it would make sense to add > those elements directly to its suggested profile instead of writing a > newer XEP, with a warning that older clients don’t support them. > > What do you think about this proposal? > > [0] http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-June/029969.html > [1] http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/semantics.html > > -- > Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
