Re: Reinstating XHTML-IM (XEP-0071)

Marvin.

Respectfully. Please. Read this message, and I be glad to negotiate a
solution.

I a practical man, and I am not influenced by "hypes" (e.g. JSON,
Markdown, and other sort of supposed "easy" nonsense).

My message is explicit; and if you deem any writing of mine to be
inappropriate, then do inform me, and I will correct myself.


About me
--------

My name is Schimon Zachary Jehudah. I am a corporate and criminal
Attorney at Law and a Notary of over a decade; I hold proven successful
cases, against prominent police units, that are exclusively reserved to
myself in favour of my clients, unlike 90% of lawyer who do anything
that they can to damage their own clients.

I have no other formal qualifications other than LL.B. (first degree in
legal studies), and if I was living during the 70's, then I probably
would not even bother to have an academic certification, just the bar
license.

My legal niche is "organized civil government conspiracies".


My involvement
--------------

In recent five years, I have been developing with XML and XSLT, not
because I want to, but because I have to; that is, I am invloved, due
to necessity.

There is a current emergency, and increasing conspiracies against Free
Software and Free Communications;

Some of these were apparent to me during my work with organizations
which I am not allowed to mention; and

In recent years, I further notice it, with the new delusional concept of
"code of conduct" as a mean to censor people of reason who express
against conflict of inerest, social agendas, and other concerns that
are meant to destroy stated original intentions of software projects.


General request
---------------

I ask you, to be most serious and sensible.

I will not accept any claim which is unreasonable, such as "because
someone else, who is this and that, did so and so".

If I was to claim such statements in any court of law, I would be a
terrible professional, not to mention that doing so is disgraceful.


XHTML
-----

With respect, I think that your remarks of XHTML and the mentioned
organizations and projects are irrelevant, and also dangerously false.

XHTML is a valid form of XML, and the best form of one-file documents.

XML is the format which the internet was meant to be.

HTML is an invalid form of XML.

That whole introduction will be apparent, when you be reading my
respond.

On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:47:29 +0800
"Marvin W. via Standards" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Am I the only one seeing the irony that the two XEPs of which one you
> phrase as "new", have been accepted in the very same Council meeting
> in 2017?
> 

Please. Be obvious (i.e. "clear", as some say).

What do you mean, exactly?

> Also XEP-0394 is not aiming for "rich text" in the same way that
> XHTML- IM provides it, especially it doesn't provide means for text
> coloring or font family - it's meant for semantic markup.
> 

What that statement is of?

Please explain.

> Now specifically about XHTML, it's important to note that XHTML
> 1.0/1.1 were retired at its standardization body (W3C) in 2018. [1]
> The XML- serialization of HTML5 is not recommended (see big warning
> on [2]). New rendering engines like Servo do not support XHTML. In
> other words, XHTML is basically dead.
> 

I have a reStructuredText document in my computer HDD.

Would you criticize me for utilizing reST instead of the lenient
Markdown, perhaps?

Shoul I be bound to utilize ODT, or RTF, instead of reST, because the
head of my synagogue utilizes ODT and RTF?


Hostile elements
----------------

Who is to be an authority of XHTML to be good or not?

Recently, representatives of that mentioned organization have unfairly
tried to silently and subtly neglect XSLT 2.0 and XSLT 3.0 versions,
and censored critique comments. Perhaps we should deligate the
"authority" of XML to Saxonica.

https://github.com/w3ctag/obsoletion/issues/10

The latter organization of the project which you mentioned, is funded
by organizations with special interests that are not interested at XML
(namely XHTML, XForms, and XSLT), and has a designedly broken XSLT
implementation in years, both ECMAScript module and built-in interface.

https://openuserjs.org/garage/Why_my_script_doesnt_work_with_Firefox#comment-1810ec600fe

Considering their obvious conflict of interest, and the benevolent
fairy tale of "browser wars" ("star wars" for adults), I trust none of
these organizations. Why would you even consider them for even a moment?

Are you aware that those who fund these mentioned organizations are not
interested in a standard form of internet, other than trying to foist
HTML which is patched by ECMA?


HTML5
-----

We, lawyers, oftenly state that, "HTML5 is the legally legitimate form
of KaZaA".

The HTML5 campaign was an obvious and coordibated PsyOp (psychological
operation) to distract people from XML and accessible form of internet.

Considering the proper design of "Office Suite" software, it is obvious
to speculate that IE6 was deliberately badly designed; and

AOL deliberately gave away the source code of Netscape to create "Moz"
(a multi billion worth organization); and

The crimnals of Washington D.C. and the organiations that are currently
funding the organizations which you mentioned, have exploited the state
of mind of people who were influenced by "Television Programming" such
as "star wars" and other insane and imaginary programs to recruit
people at their 20's to 40's to actively campaign and paricipate in
that "browser war" PsyOp for free.

A COORDINATION THAT YIELDED CENTRALIZATION AND DENIED NEW COMPETITION.

Since the year of 2005, we could have XML (Atom and XForms) and
optionally XSLT and XHTML, instead of the foisted mess of HTML, ECMA,
CSS, and HTTP to spy on people.

XML is efficient, cheaper, faster, reliable, and more accessible.

However, the enormous amount of HTML standards, that are branded as
"web", "open web", and "open source", to further masquerade the
enormity against (X)HTML, is deliberately high enough to significantly
deny the access of new competitors.

With over a thousand of so called "web" specifications, the current
complexity of so called "web standards" is obscene. The creation of a
new internet browser would be comparable in effort to establish
worldwide corporation project. Even the organizations which are
responsible to the abomination of HTML5 do not properly support their
own standards.

AN XML BASE INTERNET, WOULD ENABLE MORE COMPETITION AND OPENESS.

If a criminal lawyer can realize it, then so should anyone else.

https://xslt.rip


Law Firms
---------

I am working with two of the largest law firms and none of which dares
to have HTML nor MHTML neither HTMLZ.

Both firms utilize offline versions of XML (DocBook), XHTML; and since
one is a criminal law firm which is subjected to police wiretapping,
HTML/HTTP browsers are strictly forbidden, as a matter of an internal
security policy and privacy to our high profile clients.

It be better to have all documents as XHTML, than broken XML (i.e. the
gimped version of SGML which is referred to as HTML).

If you genuinely think that HTML5 is any good; then, you might want to
create a "lenient" version of XMPP; and that whom would be foolish
enough to dare to do so to XMPP itself, will cause to the inevitable
creation of an XSF compeitor.

It is interesting to me, if the intelligence, espionade, secret police,
and military, where I live, would be even more stupid to accept the
gimped format which is called HTML to be delivered over XMPP, instead
of XML and XHTML. NOW, THAT WOULD BE AN IRONY! Would it not?

> XEP-0071 XHTML-IM is only a select subset of XHTML with unclear focus
> - what the people at the time deemed sensible for the IM usecase.

At that time it was innovative. Today, it is obviously acceptable!

Please. Do refer to proper references, instead of writing statements
that you deem or think to be correct or convenient to you.

> This likely has changed since and remaining XMPP clients implementing
> it often divert from the specification in some aspects (by supporting
> more or less elements/attributes/properties than recommended).
> 

This has not changed. It is only peer pressure of XSF that caused it.


Peer pressure
-------------

The fact that some XSF members have pressured developers to remove
XHTML does not mean that people (i.e. "users") think that removing
XHTML is appropriate.

Peer pressure against developers does not mean that developers actually
agree, and it certainly does not mean that the people agree.


CoyIM
-----

CoyIM is a good XMPP client, yet due to internal "frind to friend"
discussions, CoyIM is not encouraged due to the lack of OMEMO and
encouragement of OTR.

To that, I would say, help to CoyIM to create a plugin system, and then
create a "third-party" plugin of OMEMO, instead of ignoring CoyIM.

Again, peer pressure does not mean that CoyIM is bad; the CoyIM
developers are strong enough to express their own opinion.


Communications
--------------

To add to that argument, I would even accuse XSF for only enabling a
single mailing-list which is only meant to discuss of standards, not
even of software development (i.e. jdev), so most of the posters are
probable to be "buddies" of XSF; and the dismissal of the mailing-list
"general" obviously was a setback to have a shared general forum to
discuss XMPP of all XMPP software and communities.

So, with so few communication hubs, it is easier to create a false
sense of contrived consent and manufactured sense of reality and
consent, that "most people" "genuinely agree" to remove XHTML-IM.

That, of course, is not true. XHTML-IM is useful.

> Instead of reviving XHTML / XHTML-IM / XEP-0071 I would suggest those
> that want to use HTML or XHTML, especially for non-IM usecases, to use
> XEP-0481 to transfer HTML5.
> 

Why would anyone want to utilize the gimpd and HTML5?

Do you, perhaps, want to incorporate ECMA Script?

How would that be sensible?

HTML does not belong to XMPP, nor is useful to anything else.

HTML5 is a brand which was abused against us to accept:

* More spyware of ECMAScript (i.e. JavaScript), including retival of
  network instrument (5g, 4g, ethernet, wifi);

* Useless animated CSS3 which further abuses CPU power, and that harm
  people of poorer nations;

* "Canvas" and video games inside a document viewer when this can and
  should be managed outside of a textual article;

* More elements to uniquely identify computers, including checksums, in
  addition to "user-agent".

This is an obvious conspiracy to create dangerous software that are
refered to as (spider) "web browsers";

Do notice that, "internet browsers" that are HTTP clients that only
parse HTML; and some deliberately designed to fail to parse XHTML, even
though XHTML is cheaper and more effective to parse and create than
HTML, obviously.

Additionally, protocols FTP and Gopher were removed, the WebExtension
system deliberately does not allow TCP/UDP, which means that BitTorrent
(Torrent Tornado), IRC (ChatZilla), XMPP (SamePlace), Gopher
(Overvite), SSH (FireSSH), FTP (FireFTP) are not possible.

There is an obvious attempt to influence people to think that HTTP is
the only one form of "the internet". This is done in order to create an
unfair advantage.

With respect, as I stated earlier, I advise to you, to retract from
XMPP and to create your own and new HTML driven platform, if you are
tend to consider anything that is encouraged by organizations with
obvious conflict of interest.

With no offence, that advisory is not facetious. If you do not realize
that XMPP is of XML, and that HTML is a lenient and inferior version of
XML, and that the organization which you referred to are heavily
influenced by people who do not want us to improve, then I do not think
that your opinion is productive, at the very least.

> For IM usecases, it's probably a good idea to write up which features
> are desired from XHTML-IM that XEP-0394 does not provide, so we can
> work on semantifying those for inclusion in XEP-0394.
> 

I ask, again. Why would you?

Software developers can easily realize *this string* to be sent as
<b>this string</b>.

The so called Markdown format is subjected to inconsistencies from one
software to another, but that is not the actual issue of this concern.

> Marvin
> 
> 
> [1] https://***.**.***/standards/history/xhtml11/
> [2] https://****.****.******.***/multipage/xhtml.html#the-xhtml-syntax
> 

I will ask, again.

Did you notice, that the references are of those who recently
discouraged XSLT for no good reason?

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11590

Did you notice that the references are of those who encourage a broken
internet; that is, HTML instead XHTML?

Did you notice that the references are of those who encourage patched
HTML which was referred to as DHTML instead of properly develop XML and
XSLT?

Did you notice that the references are of those who in fact terrorise
the world in favour of unfair data control advantage and profit circle?

If we adopt XML and XHTML, then data management is easier, cheaper, and
more accessible.


My project
----------

I would advise you to explore an XMPP project which I am currently
working on, which is entirely based upon XML (Atom, DOAP, Metalink,
Sitemap, XBEL, XForms, XSLT, and XHTML).

https://nlnet.nl/project/Rivista/

As with XML over XMPP, Rivista Voyager is XML over HTTP and I am even
experimenting it over ADC, eDonkey2000, Gnutella2, and MUTE.

Additionally, there is no platform-specific HTML so called "templating
engine", and the templating-engine is realized by XSLT alone.

To me, these would constitute more reasons to consider XHTML over HTML.


Post script
-----------

Last, but not least.

As a a man who honours his statements and roles, I want to state this.

If I was an XSF member, not only would I not dare to work for nor with
the organizations which you mentioned; but, as an XSF member, I would
PROTEST against their apparent treasonous behaviour against humanity,
against our privacies, and against our accessibility to information.


Best,
Schimon

> On Sun, 2026-03-15 at 01:43 +0000, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
> > > I am not an XSF member, yet I am interested to reinstate
> > > XHTML-IM.  
> > 
> > I am very much in favour of this. While deprecation in favour of 
> > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0393.html may have seemed simpler at
> > the 
> > time, new work like
> > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0394.html demonstrates 
> > that this is not enough and there is an appetite for full rich text.
> > The 
> > standardized rich tezt format is HTML which has the benefit (for us)
> > of 
> > having an obvious XML syntax and a pre existing XEP.
> > 
> > Besides this we also have new and acitve uses of XHTML-IM in the
> > community 
> > (not just by me) and leaving the XEP deprecated is confusing in
> > this context.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]  
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]