On Wed, Mar 27, 2019, at 17:54, Ненахов Андрей wrote: > Not really. You know what telegram does? Whenever you're presented > with a link, it makes this URL: tg://unsafe_url?url= > https://xabber.com/ and when you click on it, you see a warning, > изображение.png > > Extra easy.
That's a good idea; I do wonder how many things would actually do that though. I suppose if we added them we could always put a note in the security section about UI concerns. > Lists and numbers with dots aren't the same thing either. It won't > look the same and it's the reason why <ul> and <ol> tags exist. Why not? As far as I can tell that's what most things do: just stick a center dot on it. In HTML I'm pretty sure most renderers put a center dot in the before:content area (I don't actually know what this is called). A client could do this just as easily. > Because your plain text version does not work everywhere. I somehow > forgot to mention the abolute worst thing about 0393 as it it's > written:* now do you suggest disabling processing these * and _ on > remote end*?? Why would you want or need to do that? They make a good fallback. If your client doesn't support *bold* it's still obvious that I wanted to put emphasis on that word when you see plaintext wrapped in *'s. > XEP-0071 had a decency to have a special <html> to put formatted text, > but you suggest acting like Pidgin, which was infamously putting HTML > code into <body>, whether the guy on remote end wants it or not. Also, > If you need to pass, say, a sample of text with markdown format, how > can recipient view it if it'll already be rendered with fancy > graphics? HTML isn't readable, the syntax in 0393 is designed to be readable and convey basic meaning whether it gets rendered or not. If you need to pass a sample of plain text, you can put it in a pre-rendered text block (eg. ```). > The idea was, that *if* a media object does use "begin"/"end", it IS > presented as a hyperlink within a text (if it's not some kid of > special tag to show object inline). But if there are NO "begin" and > "end" attributes, object should be considered as a generic attached > object. My examples did contain such variants. I see, I misunderstood that. That seems like a lot of complexity for clients to implement over just using OOB or SIMS or something similar that doesn't involve referencing things in the body. > Because media and mentions ARE a form of styling. They do have other > functions and uses as well, but they belong to a same class of tags of > equal level, just like <b> is equal to <img> and <a> in HTML. Take a > look: изображение.png I disagree; one changes the style of the message, one is completely unrelated. If I style a message by emphasizing some text, any client that supports my styling will show it somehow to convey emphasis to the user. If I'm sending an image, some clients may display it inline, some may just have an attachments pane where users can download files, some may show a button or link, etc. It doesn't necessarily affect the style of the message at all. Similarly, mentions may be styled differently, or they may just trigger a notification. There are all sorts of other concerns that are involved with media and mentions that just don't exist for basic styling, so I don't think they're the same thing or need to be in the same XEP. Put another way, just because I want to support bold and italics doesn't mean I want to support attaching images. If they're in the same XEP, it becomes harder for me to implement one and not the other. Having them separate makes it easier for me to do one or the other and not have to dig out what bits I need to just do formatting and not media. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
