Given how common it is even for us, when posting examples of <content type="XHTML"> without declaring the XHTML namespace, might it be a good idea to specify a mandatory method of declaring the XHTML namespace to ensure that implementors don't forget? I realize that it could be done multiple ways, but would there be any drawback to mandating one? I'd suggest changing:
If the value of "type" is "XHTML", the content of the Text construct MAY contain child elements. The content SHOULD be XHTML text and markup that could validly appear directly within an xhtml:div element. Receiving software which displays the content MAY use the markup to aid in displaying it. Escaped markup is interpreted as a text representation of markup, and MUST NOT be interpreted as markup itself.
to something like:
If the value of "type" is "XHTML", the content of the Text construct MUST be a single xhtml:div element which MUST declare the XHTML namespace, either as the default namespace or with a namespace prefix [[[we COULD require it to be the default namespace--any drawbacks to that?]]]. The xhtml:div element MAY contain child elements. Receiving software which displays the content MAY use any markup to aid in displaying it. Escaped markup is interpreted as a text representation of markup, and MUST NOT be interpreted as markup itself.
Examples:
<content type="XHTML"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>The word <b>bold</b> is bold.</div></content>
<content type="XHTML"><div xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>The word <xhtml:b>bold</xhtml:b> is bold.</div></content>
<content type="XHTML"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; style="color:#03c;">The word <b>bold</b> is bold.</div></content>
If I get no explanations of why this is a bad idea, I'll write a Pace.
Antone
