[JDEV] XHTML Inband Images update

[Richard Dobson]

> > > 'drop down emoticon' trend, people who want a specific image can send
the
> > > image, and emoticons can return to being purely pretty-printed text
like
> > > they're supposed to be.
> >
> > The main reason is so you can include arbitary images without having to
> > reference them on an http server will all the problems that entails, but
> > yes it can be used for custom emoticon graphics as well as other
arbitary
> > images you wish to display to someone in a chat, but it is designed to
be
> > flexible so that it is not restricted to images and could perhaps be
used
> > for other things like sound effects.
>
> There's your issue.  If you use <img/> you won't be using it for sound
> effects.

I never said use the img tag for sound effects, I was referring to the basic
mechanism of using cid's in URI's (e.g. the src in img) to use with the iobj
protocol to download the data.

> > Use of the object tag is specified as MUST NOT be supported in the
XHTML-IM
> > specification in JEP-0071 so we cannot use that.
>
> This sounds more like a problem with XHTML-IM than with using the
<object/>
> tag.  We would have to make them change their minds on which tag to use
and
> mark <img/> as MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT, since the <img/> tag is about to
> become deprecated.
>
> The only issue I can think regarding <object/> is it has one more
attribute
> you have to specify (the content type.)

The main problem with objects is that it is too flexible really for XHTML-IM
where simplicity is key IMO, I cannot see many people implementing flash,
shockwave etc embedding into their chat windows, all people need is images,
not the full scope of what object is capable of, but anyway this is off
topic and is out of scope of this discussion, if you have serious enough of
a problem with this you should contact stpeter who has been working on
XHTML-IM with I think people from the W3C.

> > No it originally stood for inline (hence the title), plus ive look it up
on
> > dictionary.com and imbedded does seem to be a valid spelling, although
yes
> > I think it is usually spelt with an e.
>
> Yeah, I see.  "imbedded" is listed as an alternative definition but
judging by
> the fact that "embedded" has several more entries, it's probably the
"right"
> spelling.

Since it is listed as an alternate definition infact both are likely right,
but anyway this too is out of scope really and if you feel this strongly
about it is probably best you contact the people at dictionary.com and
discuss it with them.

> I keep getting pissed off with my boss over the same issue, every time he
> leaves one spelling in a document I'm correcting it to the other.  Gotta
have
> consistency though. :-/

Well personally im not really bothered how its spelt, so long as people
understand what it says, im more worried about the technical side not silly
little spellings that make no impact on that and can be worried about later
down the road once the technical side is sorted.

Richard