On 28 Jan 2005, at 6:21 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
I also don't like the restriction on where namespace declarations must be placed, but overall, I believe that the pace is a good idea.
Yes.
and it succinctly provides a rather good hint as to what child elements are valid.
Yes.
I would be OK with either keeping the definition of type='XHTML' consistent (there are other types available,
after all)
Yes.
or requiring a summary element to be present if the first child element of atom:content with type='XHTML' is not an xhtml:div.
Ew.
Graham
