On 2008-01-30 23:32, you wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > I am curious about the status of the required <div> container when > > including xhtml in text constructs. Wi[ll] it be changed to become > > optional instead? > > There's no ongoing effort to revise the Atom syntax format, so assume > this <div> will be required in the forseeable future.
That is a shame. > > Instead I am currently using a ‘hack’ which involves declaring the > > type as application/xhtml+xml instead of xhtml. > > Note that Atom's special-cased @type="html" and @type="xhtml" are > explicitly for HTML *fragments*; if you use > @type="application/xhtml+xml", it's reasonable for an Atom processor to > expect *an entire XHTML document*, <html> element and all, inside your > text construct. Then maybe I should include an entire XHTML document structure. That would make more sense than including XHTML fragments contained in a div element. (That unnecessary div really bugs me, for some reason.) > > Is there a better way of doing this? [...] My main concern is that > > some feed readers may not be able to support my undocumented > > implementation/interpretation. > > It's probably not a bad idea to use the HTML namespace as the default > within your text construct, like so: > > <summary type="xhtml"> > <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";> > <p> > This is a <em>summary</em> paragraph. > </p> > </div> > </summary> Are there any downsides to defining the namespace in the atom:feed element instead of repeating it troughout the document? -- Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
