Ok, now that I'm thinking about this more, I'm changing my initial +0 to +1. This just makes sense. There does need to be a container for the XHTML and div is a solid, logical choice. I don't think it should matter where the xmlns is declared... any ancestor element will do.
- James M Snell
Antone Roundy wrote:
+1, but I wouldn't object to a variant that required either the DIV with a namespace declaration OR for the namespace to be declared in <content> or before <content>. Examples of what I'd think was acceptable:
<feed ... xmlns:xhtml="..." /> ... <content>This is <xhtml:b>bold</xhtml:b></content>
OR
<content xmlns:xhtml="..." />This is <xhtml:b>bold</xhtml:b></content>
OR
<content><div xmlns="..." />This is <b>bold</b></content>
Here's what I think is just plain ugly and shouldn't be allowed:
<content>This is <b xmlns="..." >bold</b></content>
OR
<content>This is <xhtml:b xmlns:xhtml="..." >bold</xhtml:b></content>
