On Montag, 6. November 2017 21:19:47 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote: > It's probably more helpful if people comment on the actual XEP in > regards to specific rules or wording in the XEP. > Just complaining about it and wanting something completely different > is not going to help anyone. > If you want semantic information in there or if you prefer something > XHTML based go ahead and write that XEP. > But this particular XEP is not magically going to turn into something > completely different. > > </rant>
While I agree with your statement in general (that XEPs should be commented on based on what they are), I think this situation is different from the general case. We have the situation that one group is pushing for abandoning XHTML-IM (for good reasons!) and any XEP remotely touching the area of markup *will* be held against XHTML-IM standards (we’ve seen that with Body Markup Hints) and the use-cases people discussed on the list in the last weeks. Now we find that one of the proponents of obsoleting XHTML-IM is proposing a XEP which solves some of the use-cases in ways for which we’ve heard arguments against which only partially have been refuted properly. I personally find this frustrating because it feels like those offering criticism are being ignored for no good reason. And I think those raising their voices on those matters are in the right here. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
