4 ms·
>XML is best used for markup, Funny enough, the one thing XMPP does not use xml for is markup! See https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0393.html https://xmpp.org/
by wusspuss 5y ago
>XML is best used for markup,
Funny enough, the one thing XMPP does not use xml for is markup! See
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0393.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0393.html - an ad hoc markup format
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0394.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0394.html - a laughably perverse usage of the already perverse XML format
I don't know why they did this but I guess they had reasons - perhaps XML doesn't actually do that well even for markups
- Zash 5y agoDo not mention the format war. Once upon a time, we had XHTML-IM https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0071.html But then web developers came along and just put this directly into the DOM of their web clients, leading to endless XXS exploits, so XEP-0071 was burned at the stake. XEP-0393 might look ad-hoc, but it's essentially what people were typing into their chats and emails since time immemorial. People sometimes think this is Markdown and then pick a markdown library off the shelf and then the HTML passtrough bites them, leading us back to the beginning. I really don't understand how Matrix and Mastodon etc are allowed to pass around HTML embedded in JSON as if that somehow solves all those problems.
- wusspuss 5y agoTbh if a client is dumb enough to put xhtml-im directly into DOM with no verification that is the client's problem, not the XEP's, and that should be no reason to cancel it.
- Zash 5y agoWell, if it was _a_ client. But if 100% of clients make the same mistake, then it is the spec that is the problem, or so the argument went. Maybe one day xhtml-im will make a glorious return as a 2.0, with bigger, better and scarier warnings about sanitizing your inputs