Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

Stephen Paul Weber <[email protected]> Wed, 1 Apr 2026 09:03:41 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

>Ah I understand it better. So you're wondering why people would have 
>mention "marking" without implementing XEP-0394? I actually agree with you, 
>I think that this was suggested (not by me initially) as you say because 
>people don't want to implement the whole marking thing (with bold, italic, 
>etc) just to get mention. However, people can do partial implementation if 
>they want.

A partial implementation still lends "legitimacy" to the XEP and increases 
the odds it ends up at least partially entrenched in implementations, 
though. And this would hardly be the first time we've done this. Should 
fallbacks be part of 0394 too?

Nevertheless when I look at the actual example given, maybe 0394 could be 
split in such a way that we get a XEP defining the <span/> element without 
the <markup/> parent on any defined children. Then it would of course make 
sense for mentions and fallbacks to use that. Instead of moving everything 
that uses a span concept into the same one XEP.

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)