On Dienstag, 7. November 2017 20:26:54 CET Dave Cridland wrote: > On 7 November 2017 at 18:29, Jonas Wielicki <jo...@wielicki.name> wrote: > > On Montag, 6. November 2017 11:58:15 CET Sam Whited wrote: > >> URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/styling.html > > > > This XEP is incompatible with *sending* clients (be they human or > > automated) which are not aware of it. I strongly advocate for an opt-in > > mechanism (at which point this is the rejected Body Markup Hints > > ProtoXEP, but with a custom markup) on each message; if that’s not gonna > > find consensus, I think an opt- out mechanism is the least which must be > > done. > > I agree that a simplified BMH is the right path here. > > > I also still think that this XEP mixes input conventions with wire format > > in a very unfortunate way. In the spirit of "complaining about things > > this XEP is not trying to be is not going to help anyone", I am currently > > preparing a another ProtoXEP. > > And I look forward to it. But I think we may then end up with > multipart/alternative, and I'm not wholly sure I want that. > > * The content fork concept has proven a bit of a pain in email, > whereas "subtle" formatting, like format-flowed, has worked very well. > * We double the size of messages, by writing everything twice. > * Such a design more or less requires content negotiation, which is a > fine thing, but basically fails in MUC and similar cases. > * By writing everything twice, we double the size of messages.
Lucky for you, it’s not multipart/alternative :-) (which we both agree is a terrible idea). 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 _______________________________________________
