Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and body and add <br> and <p> for body.
Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML tags. Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these [HTML] tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or attributes of these tags".
Many browsers render <em> and <i> identically- the motivation to use em over i would be to improve the semantic markup of the content. I support adding <em> but feel that we should also include <strong> for the same reason.
~Arne
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> wrote: > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and body > and add <br> and <p> for body.
> Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML tags. > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these [HTML] > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or > attributes of these tags".
> Many browsers render <em> and <i> identically- the motivation to use em > over i would be to improve the semantic markup of the content. I support > adding <em> but feel that we should also include <strong> for the same > reason.
> ~Arne
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> wrote:
>> Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to >> respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and body >> and add <br> and <p> for body.
>> Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML tags. >> Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these [HTML] >> tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or >> attributes of these tags".
imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no formatting.
_____
From: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com [mailto:opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Evan Gilbert Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:22 PM To: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com Subject: Proposal: Modify tags allowed in Activity Stream templates
Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and body and add <br> and <p> for body.
Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML tags. Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these [HTML] tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or attributes of these tags".
We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the container
want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container enforced look
and feel.
Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote:
> imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no formatting.
> _____
> From: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Evan
> Gilbert
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:22 PM
> To: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Proposal: Modify tags allowed in Activity Stream templates
> Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to
> respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and body
> and add <br> and <p> for body.
> Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML tags.
> Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these [HTML]
> tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or
> attributes of these tags".
The use case I was thinking for <span> was <span style="font-color: teal">, for the containers that might want to allow custom styling in activities. However, unless any container thinks this is useful we should probably take it out of titles.
So, updated proposal is to add <em> for both title and body, <br> and <p> for body, and remove <span> for title.
To Amar's point about text only - containers have the option to strip any style. <a> tags are probably the only tag that are likely to show up in most containers, and even these might be limited to links to the current site. However I think it is useful to allow for <b> and similar hints if the container might find them useful.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Marco <ens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the container > want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container enforced look > and feel. > Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
> On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote: > > imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no > formatting.
> > _____
> > From: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Evan > > Gilbert > > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:22 PM > > To: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com > > Subject: Proposal: Modify tags allowed in Activity Stream templates
> > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to > > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and > body > > and add <br> and <p> for body.
> > Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML tags. > > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these > [HTML] > > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or > > attributes of these tags".
I might want to add some difficulty to this discussion. I actually planned to hold any discussion on this issue until I had thought about it a little longer, and propose it for 0.9, but I just want to mention it.
At Hyves we have always supported our own markup language, using ubb-like codes ([b] [i]), and custom smilies. Now obviously this is not a problem for the gadget developer, except that quite some users use these tags in their nicknames, and nicknames are the primary display name for Hyves users.
As I said, we're still thinking on how to implement this correctly into OpenSocial (and I don't want to hijack this thread by starting that discussion), however I just wanted to mention it.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> wrote: > The use case I was thinking for <span> was <span style="font-color: > teal">, for the containers that might want to allow custom styling in > activities. However, unless any container thinks this is useful we should > probably take it out of titles.
> So, updated proposal is to add <em> for both title and body, <br> and <p> > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> To Amar's point about text only - containers have the option to strip any > style. <a> tags are probably the only tag that are likely to show up in most > containers, and even these might be limited to links to the current site. > However I think it is useful to allow for <b> and similar hints if the > container might find them useful.
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Marco <ens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the container > > want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container enforced look > > and feel. > > Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
> > On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote: > > > imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no > > formatting.
> > > _____
> > > From: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com > > > [mailto:opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > > Evan > > > Gilbert > > > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:22 PM > > > To: opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com > > > Subject: Proposal: Modify tags allowed in Activity Stream templates
> > > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to > > > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and > > body > > > and add <br> and <p> for body.
> > > Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML > > tags. > > > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these > > [HTML] > > > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or > > > attributes of these tags".
> I might want to add some difficulty to this discussion. I actually planned
> to hold any discussion on this issue until I had thought about it a little
> longer, and propose it for 0.9, but I just want to mention it.
> At Hyves we have always supported our own markup language, using ubb-like
> codes ([b] [i]), and custom smilies.
> Now obviously this is not a problem for the gadget developer, except that
> quite some users use these tags in their nicknames, and nicknames are the
> primary display name for Hyves users.
> As I said, we're still thinking on how to implement this correctly into
> OpenSocial (and I don't want to hijack this thread by starting that
> discussion), however I just wanted to mention it.
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> wrote:
> > The use case I was thinking for <span> was <span style="font-color:
> > teal">, for the containers that might want to allow custom styling in
> > activities. However, unless any container thinks this is useful we should
> > probably take it out of titles.
> > So, updated proposal is to add <em> for both title and body, <br> and <p>
> > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> > To Amar's point about text only - containers have the option to strip any
> > style. <a> tags are probably the only tag that are likely to show up in most
> > containers, and even these might be limited to links to the current site.
> > However I think it is useful to allow for <b> and similar hints if the
> > container might find them useful.
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Marco <ens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the container
> > > want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container enforced look
> > > and feel.
> > > Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
> > > On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no
> > > formatting.
> > > > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated to
> > > > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title and
> > > body
> > > > and add <br> and <p> for body.
> > > > Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML
> > > tags.
> > > > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out these
> > > [HTML]
> > > > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or
> > > > attributes of these tags".
Reinoud - just wanted to clarify your thoughts on this proposal. Was your comment a +1 or -1? Everyone else - we just need a couple more opinions for this simple change :)
Thanks. - Cassie
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Arne Roomann-Kurrik (Google) <
> +1 for the proposal to add <em> (and <strong>!) for both title and > body, <br> and <p> > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> Reinoud, would it be possible for Hyves to rewrite these tags into > their HTML equivalents when rendering an activity stream entry?
> ~Arne
> On Apr 22, 8:05 am, "Reinoud Elhorst" <rein...@hyves.nl> wrote: > > I might want to add some difficulty to this discussion. I actually > planned > > to hold any discussion on this issue until I had thought about it a > little > > longer, and propose it for 0.9, but I just want to mention it.
> > At Hyves we have always supported our own markup language, using ubb-like > > codes ([b] [i]), and custom smilies. > > Now obviously this is not a problem for the gadget developer, except that > > quite some users use these tags in their nicknames, and nicknames are the > > primary display name for Hyves users.
> > As I said, we're still thinking on how to implement this correctly into > > OpenSocial (and I don't want to hijack this thread by starting that > > discussion), however I just wanted to mention it.
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> wrote: > > > The use case I was thinking for <span> was <span style="font-color: > > > teal">, for the containers that might want to allow custom styling in > > > activities. However, unless any container thinks this is useful we > should > > > probably take it out of titles.
> > > So, updated proposal is to add <em> for both title and body, <br> and > <p> > > > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> > > To Amar's point about text only - containers have the option to strip > any > > > style. <a> tags are probably the only tag that are likely to show up in > most > > > containers, and even these might be limited to links to the current > site. > > > However I think it is useful to allow for <b> and similar hints if the > > > container might find them useful.
> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Marco <ens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the container > > > > want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container enforced > look > > > > and feel. > > > > Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
> > > > On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no > > > > formatting.
> > > > > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not obligated > to > > > > > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both title > and > > > > body > > > > > and add <br> and <p> for body.
> > > > > Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these HTML > > > > tags. > > > > > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out > these > > > > [HTML] > > > > > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags or > > > > > attributes of these tags".
I suppose it's a +0 from me, I just wanted to share our markup problems that we're probably going to shre seriously for the 0.9 spec.
Honestly, I don't really care. It seems that <em> and <strong> are logical, although unnecessary additions (since <i> and <b> will do the same job, and take less space in the database).
At Hyves we don't have a activity stream body. We do have some places where we don't allow newlines in user generated content; I can see how containers would not want newlines at some places. Containers are free to strip out newlines though. In this case I would think that <br> is a useful addition, <p> seems less so, since most people use it as an alias for <br> anyways.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Cassie <d...@google.com> wrote: > Reinoud - just wanted to clarify your thoughts on this proposal. Was your > comment a +1 or -1? > Everyone else - we just need a couple more opinions for this simple change > :)
> Thanks. > - Cassie
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Arne Roomann-Kurrik (Google) < > api.kur...@google.com> wrote:
> > +1 for the proposal to add <em> (and <strong>!) for both title and > > body, <br> and <p> > > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> > Reinoud, would it be possible for Hyves to rewrite these tags into > > their HTML equivalents when rendering an activity stream entry?
> > ~Arne
> > On Apr 22, 8:05 am, "Reinoud Elhorst" <rein...@hyves.nl> wrote: > > > I might want to add some difficulty to this discussion. I actually > > planned > > > to hold any discussion on this issue until I had thought about it a > > little > > > longer, and propose it for 0.9, but I just want to mention it.
> > > At Hyves we have always supported our own markup language, using > > ubb-like > > > codes ([b] [i]), and custom smilies. > > > Now obviously this is not a problem for the gadget developer, except > > that > > > quite some users use these tags in their nicknames, and nicknames are > > the > > > primary display name for Hyves users.
> > > As I said, we're still thinking on how to implement this correctly > > into > > > OpenSocial (and I don't want to hijack this thread by starting that > > > discussion), however I just wanted to mention it.
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> > > wrote: > > > > The use case I was thinking for <span> was <span style="font-color: > > > > teal">, for the containers that might want to allow custom styling > > in > > > > activities. However, unless any container thinks this is useful we > > should > > > > probably take it out of titles.
> > > > So, updated proposal is to add <em> for both title and body, <br> > > and <p> > > > > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> > > > To Amar's point about text only - containers have the option to > > strip any > > > > style. <a> tags are probably the only tag that are likely to show up > > in most > > > > containers, and even these might be limited to links to the current > > site. > > > > However I think it is useful to allow for <b> and similar hints if > > the > > > > container might find them useful.
> > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Marco <ens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the container > > > > > want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container enforced > > look > > > > > and feel. > > > > > Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
> > > > > On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no > > > > > formatting.
> > > > > > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not > > obligated to > > > > > > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both > > title and > > > > > body > > > > > > and add <br> and <p> for body.
> > > > > > Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these > > HTML > > > > > tags. > > > > > > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out > > these > > > > > [HTML] > > > > > > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags > > or > > > > > > attributes of these tags".
Okay, so why don't we just do the same thing that we did with the title and body fields on message objects. ie we rephrase all this tagging stuff to just say this:
"HTML attributes are allowed and but may be sanitized or stripped by the container."
(I don't think its likely all containers will ever agree before I have to close 0.8 on which styles are fine or not fine :)
Thanks. - Cassie
On 4/29/08, Reinoud Elhorst <rein...@hyves.nl> wrote:
> I suppose it's a +0 from me, I just wanted to share our markup problems that > we're probably going to shre seriously for the 0.9 spec.
> Honestly, I don't really care. It seems that <em> and <strong> are logical, > although unnecessary additions (since <i> and <b> will do the same job, and > take less space in the database).
> At Hyves we don't have a activity stream body. We do have some places where > we don't allow newlines in user generated content; I can see how containers > would not want newlines at some places. Containers are free to strip out > newlines though. In this case I would think that <br> is a useful addition, > <p> seems less so, since most people use it as an alias for <br> anyways.
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Cassie <d...@google.com> wrote:
>> Reinoud - just wanted to clarify your thoughts on this proposal. Was your >> comment a +1 or -1? >> Everyone else - we just need a couple more opinions for this simple change >> :)
>> Thanks. >> - Cassie
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Arne Roomann-Kurrik (Google) < >> api.kur...@google.com> wrote:
>> > +1 for the proposal to add <em> (and <strong>!) for both title and >> > body, <br> and <p> >> > for body, and remove <span> for title.
>> > Reinoud, would it be possible for Hyves to rewrite these tags into >> > their HTML equivalents when rendering an activity stream entry?
>> > ~Arne
>> > On Apr 22, 8:05 am, "Reinoud Elhorst" <rein...@hyves.nl> wrote: >> > > I might want to add some difficulty to this discussion. I actually >> > planned >> > > to hold any discussion on this issue until I had thought about it a >> > little >> > > longer, and propose it for 0.9, but I just want to mention it.
>> > > At Hyves we have always supported our own markup language, using >> > ubb-like >> > > codes ([b] [i]), and custom smilies. >> > > Now obviously this is not a problem for the gadget developer, except >> > that >> > > quite some users use these tags in their nicknames, and nicknames are >> > the >> > > primary display name for Hyves users.
>> > > As I said, we're still thinking on how to implement this correctly >> > into >> > > OpenSocial (and I don't want to hijack this thread by starting that >> > > discussion), however I just wanted to mention it.
>> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > The use case I was thinking for <span> was <span style="font-color: >> > > > teal">, for the containers that might want to allow custom styling >> > in >> > > > activities. However, unless any container thinks this is useful we >> > should >> > > > probably take it out of titles.
>> > > > So, updated proposal is to add <em> for both title and body, <br> >> > and <p> >> > > > for body, and remove <span> for title.
>> > > > To Amar's point about text only - containers have the option to >> > strip any >> > > > style. <a> tags are probably the only tag that are likely to show up >> > in most >> > > > containers, and even these might be limited to links to the current >> > site. >> > > > However I think it is useful to allow for <b> and similar hints if >> > the >> > > > container might find them useful.
>> > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Marco <ens...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the container >> > > > > want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container enforced >> > look >> > > > > and feel. >> > > > > Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
>> > > > > On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote: >> > > > > > imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - no >> > > > > formatting.
>> > > > > > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not >> > obligated to >> > > > > > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both >> > title and >> > > > > body >> > > > > > and add <br> and <p> for body.
>> > > > > > Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these >> > HTML >> > > > > tags. >> > > > > > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out >> > these >> > > > > [HTML] >> > > > > > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these tags >> > or >> > > > > > attributes of these tags".
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, <d...@google.com> wrote: > Okay, so why don't we just do the same thing that we did with the > title and body fields on message objects. ie we rephrase all this > tagging stuff to just say this:
> "HTML attributes are allowed and but may be sanitized or stripped by > the container."
> (I don't think its likely all containers will ever agree before I have > to close 0.8 on which styles are fine or not fine :)
> Thanks. > - Cassie
> On 4/29/08, Reinoud Elhorst <rein...@hyves.nl> wrote: > > I suppose it's a +0 from me, I just wanted to share our markup problems > that > > we're probably going to shre seriously for the 0.9 spec.
> > Honestly, I don't really care. It seems that <em> and <strong> are > logical, > > although unnecessary additions (since <i> and <b> will do the same job, > and > > take less space in the database).
> > At Hyves we don't have a activity stream body. We do have some places > where > > we don't allow newlines in user generated content; I can see how > containers > > would not want newlines at some places. Containers are free to strip out > > newlines though. In this case I would think that <br> is a useful > addition, > > <p> seems less so, since most people use it as an alias for <br> anyways.
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Cassie <d...@google.com> wrote:
> >> Reinoud - just wanted to clarify your thoughts on this proposal. Was > your > >> comment a +1 or -1? > >> Everyone else - we just need a couple more opinions for this simple > change > >> :)
> >> Thanks. > >> - Cassie
> >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Arne Roomann-Kurrik (Google) < > >> api.kur...@google.com> wrote:
> >> > +1 for the proposal to add <em> (and <strong>!) for both title and > >> > body, <br> and <p> > >> > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> >> > Reinoud, would it be possible for Hyves to rewrite these tags into > >> > their HTML equivalents when rendering an activity stream entry?
> >> > ~Arne
> >> > On Apr 22, 8:05 am, "Reinoud Elhorst" <rein...@hyves.nl> wrote: > >> > > I might want to add some difficulty to this discussion. I actually > >> > planned > >> > > to hold any discussion on this issue until I had thought about it a > >> > little > >> > > longer, and propose it for 0.9, but I just want to mention it.
> >> > > At Hyves we have always supported our own markup language, using > >> > ubb-like > >> > > codes ([b] [i]), and custom smilies. > >> > > Now obviously this is not a problem for the gadget developer, except > >> > that > >> > > quite some users use these tags in their nicknames, and nicknames > are > >> > the > >> > > primary display name for Hyves users.
> >> > > As I said, we're still thinking on how to implement this correctly > >> > into > >> > > OpenSocial (and I don't want to hijack this thread by starting that > >> > > discussion), however I just wanted to mention it.
> >> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > The use case I was thinking for <span> was <span > style="font-color: > >> > > > teal">, for the containers that might want to allow custom styling > >> > in > >> > > > activities. However, unless any container thinks this is useful we > >> > should > >> > > > probably take it out of titles.
> >> > > > So, updated proposal is to add <em> for both title and body, <br> > >> > and <p> > >> > > > for body, and remove <span> for title.
> >> > > > To Amar's point about text only - containers have the option to > >> > strip any > >> > > > style. <a> tags are probably the only tag that are likely to show > up > >> > in most > >> > > > containers, and even these might be limited to links to the > current > >> > site. > >> > > > However I think it is useful to allow for <b> and similar hints if > >> > the > >> > > > container might find them useful.
> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Marco <ens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > We should remove the <span> attribute. Especially if the > container > >> > > > > want to strip the style attribute to enforce a container > enforced > >> > look > >> > > > > and feel. > >> > > > > Is there any good use case for the <span> ?
> >> > > > > On Apr 18, 3:09 pm, "Amar Gandhi" <am...@google.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > imo, titles are like email subjects and should be text only - > no > >> > > > > formatting.
> >> > > > > > Current set is {<b>, <i>, <a>, <span>}, container is not > >> > obligated to > >> > > > > > respect any of these tags. Proposal is to add <em> for both > >> > title and > >> > > > > body > >> > > > > > and add <br> and <p> for body.
> >> > > > > > Also want to clarify the requirements around supporting these > >> > HTML > >> > > > > tags. > >> > > > > > Currently says that the container "has the option to strip out > >> > these > >> > > > > [HTML] > >> > > > > > tags", should change to "has the option to strip out these > tags > >> > or > >> > > > > > attributes of these tags".
|
