Luke Arno wrote:
On 10/28/05, Thomas Broyer wrote:
Luke Arno wrote:
"Contents" means what you would get from an xsl:value-of:
concatenation of text node descendants.
How about an xhtml:img? As an XHTML writer, I'd expect the title attribute
to be used, or if not present, the alt attribute.
Or maybe, as Eric pointed it out, use the title attribute as a short
description and the alt as the title of the collection?
That is an interesting thought. I think I have to make
the profile itself a little less flexible so that
parsers/writers have less to consider, though.
Will it still be worth using XHTML if you add so many constraints? One
argument in favor of XHTML was flexibility…
I'm sorry but I can't buy your argument about XHTML "parseability".
What makes you think it is so hard?
The title of a collection can be found in something like 4 or 5
different places…
I'd need to read your proposal more closely (I prefer waiting the new,
simpler, one ;-) ) but it seems you have to have a DOM tree, while
parsing must be straightforward if you want to develop, e.g., a J2ME
client (SAX or XMLPull).
And I'm still not convinced an introspection document has to be
displayable in a browser…
TypePad/Blogger/etc. will probably tell you "point your AtomPP client to
http://…";
Of course it does not *have* to be.
Why then using XHTML?
I just want to see us weigh out the specific pros and
cons and decide when we are informed. It looks great
from where I am sitting now, but I am open to specific
costs that I may have overlooked.
OK, waiting for your Pace.
--
Thomas Broyer
