Sam Ruby wrote:
New abstract:
Given that common practice is to include this element, making it mandatory makes things clearer to both people who are producing consuming tools based on the spec, and people who are producing new feeds based on copy and paste.
New spec text:
The xhtml:div element itself MUST NOT be considered part of the content.
I find it a bit problematic to use "common practice" in Atom feeds as justification for spec changes. Let's make the spec as clear and simple as possible. If this is in conflict with common usage in experimental Atom feeds, so be it.
That is consistent with your prior statement that you don't believe that implementation issues should affect the format:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg12699.html
Yes, I want a spec that is simple. I also want a spec that average people can implement simply and correctly.
We have seen on this very mailing list people who have an above average understanding of XML trip over this particular area numerous times.
I am not content to create a format for which the answers to such common user errors is "so be it".
However, what is the problem with people using a DIV element inside SUMMARY and the CONTENT element if they wish to do so?
By the way, I have read the thing you wrote about things like planet copy the contents and put it in their own DIV element but if that is how they are going to treat Atom, Atom will not be solving anything and will just be another RSS I guess.
Authors who do copy and paste and others should always validate their feed. I guess the feed validator could flag elements that are in the Atom namespace and should not be there according to the latest updates of the Atom namespace.
Eventually, I guess it is about getting the major weblog systems and companies to get their implementation right. The Atom WG and other people should also provide tutorials on how to create Atom feeds and how to make sure everything works as it should.
-- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
