[otr-users] Pidgin plugin sends and parses HTML

[Rüdiger Kuhlmann]

>--[Scott Ellis]--<mail at scottellis.com.au>

> I was never given useless links - they
> explained their position quite clearly. However I didn't and still don't
> agree. To them, OTR is a protocol in it's own right, existing on top of
> other IM protocols but having it's own rules. In the OTR spec it does say
> that messages belonging to the OTR protocol may contain HTML.

Uhm. I can only find one place where it mentiones HTML at all. And while it
mentions that it may contain markup, it still doesn't qualify as allowing to
put HTML into a place where only text/plain is allowed. Of course the text
to encrypt may contain HTML, if an HTML message is about to be sent. Just as
it may contain rtf, M$ .doc or any other markup if that is what is to be
sent. But the data type of the data to be encrypted can only be determined
by the underlying protocol, otherwise an extensive chapter on integration
would HAVE to be part of the spec. It isn't. It claims that using libOTR is
as simple as replacing the plain text with the output of the function. And
it does not provide any functionality to encode or decode plain text to
HTML.

> I don't think there's anything confusing to it - just a difference in
> philosophy. My concern is that the decision to call OTR a 'protocol' is
> motivated by convenience.

Which is why I'd consider libOTR to be essentially a misnamed libGaimOTR. I
think I remember a statement from libOTR developers that any change to
libOTR could only be made at the same time as a change to
Gaim-libOTR-plugin. Which highlights this concern well enough for everyone
to notice.

The question is how to proceed without hampering the broken interoperability
of the OTR-wonnabe-protocol further. Maybe the best idea would be to
increase the version number and in the new version make the protocol provide
means to specify the type of data (plain/text, a well-defined subset of
HTML, whatever) and means to determine the receiver's preferences. Anyone
who doesn't agree?

-- 
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack
 each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
      - George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003