Robert Sayre wrote:
Thanks for the close reading. Comments inline.
Julian Reschke wrote:
This has been mentioned before...: as far as I can tell, it's far easier for recipients to process "xhtml" compared to "html" (no tag-soup parser needed), thus *any* kind of change that encourages "xhtml" would be appreciated.
I've heard client and server implementors take every possible position on the matter. I'm not sure why this issue must be raised over and over.
Because I feel it's important. There will be many clients that won't include a tag-soup parser, and markup sent as "html" will thus be lost. So *if* a producer has a choice of using "html" or "xhtml", I think "xhtml" is preferrable, and the spec should say so.
06-C02, 3.1.1 "type" Attribute
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.3.1.1>
Here's a question. Is this...:
<summary type="html"> overlapping <b>markup <>is</b> bad</i>. </summary>
legal Atom? As far as I can tell, here we have a SHOULD level requirement to only transport well-formed HTML4 content, right?
Seems like overspecification to me. What's the benefit of going into detail here?
I'd like to understand whether the spec indeed allows tag-soup, or if it actually requires valid HTML (which it seems to do right now). Thus, if people think that they can dump "arbitrary" HTML (such as user-entered) into type="html" elements, they are wrong as far as the spec currently states.
...
Best regards and thanks for the feedback,
Julian
