chat-brainstorming: Difference between revisions
ScottReynen (talk | contribs) (Added brainstorming comments) |
(Adding a question about how much information we want stored in hChat) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
- Anything that can be parsed can be used in AJAX, so we don't need to consider this in developing a microformat. --[[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]] | - Anything that can be parsed can be used in AJAX, so we don't need to consider this in developing a microformat. --[[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]] | ||
How much, and what kind of data is going to be in the file? The work done by the [http://purl.org/NET/ULF/SPEC Unified Logging Format WG] has a pretty good overview of the various types of things that an IM client would want to log. Don't make too much of a bikeshed about it -- I'm mostly linking it beacuse it's a good overview of the sorts of general element types (message, event, status) we probably want to use. --[[User:Colin Barrett|Colin Barrett]] 05:33, 22 Aug 2006 (PDT) | |||
=== Chat rooms === | === Chat rooms === | ||
Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
- Location is a problem that can be clearly separated from chats. We should stick to solving the smallest problem possible, so we can more easily combine microformats later to solve larger problems. --[[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]] | - Location is a problem that can be clearly separated from chats. We should stick to solving the smallest problem possible, so we can more easily combine microformats later to solve larger problems. --[[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]] | ||
- On chat-formats and chat-examples, IRC logs are used. I would say we should include IRC logs in our spec -- it just makes sense to design for mult-user chat, because one-to-one messaging is just a special case of that. --[[User:Colin Barrett|Colin Barrett]] 05:33, 22 Aug 2006 (PDT) | |||
== Example playground == | == Example playground == | ||
Revision as of 12:33, 22 August 2006
Requirements
Scope
Should a microformat matching these requirements be capable of representing only transcripts of existing IM protocols or should it also be able to serve as an exchange format itself. This might be useful for simple AJAX IM platforms, although I doubt if XMPP is not per definition a better choise for such purposes. --BigSmoke 13:09, 21 Jun 2006 (PDT)
- Anything that can be parsed can be used in AJAX, so we don't need to consider this in developing a microformat. --Scott Reynen
How much, and what kind of data is going to be in the file? The work done by the Unified Logging Format WG has a pretty good overview of the various types of things that an IM client would want to log. Don't make too much of a bikeshed about it -- I'm mostly linking it beacuse it's a good overview of the sorts of general element types (message, event, status) we probably want to use. --Colin Barrett 05:33, 22 Aug 2006 (PDT)
Chat rooms
Is it useful for this microformat to support the representation of "chat rooms", such as IRC channels? --BigSmoke
- Location is a problem that can be clearly separated from chats. We should stick to solving the smallest problem possible, so we can more easily combine microformats later to solve larger problems. --Scott Reynen
- On chat-formats and chat-examples, IRC logs are used. I would say we should include IRC logs in our spec -- it just makes sense to design for mult-user chat, because one-to-one messaging is just a special case of that. --Colin Barrett 05:33, 22 Aug 2006 (PDT)
Example playground
<div class="hchat-log"> <p class="hchat-msg"> <abbr class="time" title="YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS">HH:MM:SS</abbr> <!-- Please, fill me in --> </p> </div>
Ideas
Using paragraphs to represent chat messages
I think that individual messages in a chat log should be formatted as XHTML paragraphs (<p>
), because this is how conversations are commonly formatted. From the examples I gather that this is also what the ILRT Logger Bot currently does. --BigSmoke 13:09, 21 Jun 2006 (PDT)
- We can't assume all paragraphs are chat messages, so we'll need a class name to identify a chat message. Once a class name is identifying something as a message, what is the advantage of applying the additional stipulation of a specific HTML tag? It doesn't appear to aid parsing, and it only constrains publishers. --Scott Reynen