Quoting from Andrew Newton's questions relayed by Scott: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14048.html>
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 6:25 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [xml-dir] FW: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07.txt is ready for
IETF last call
...
2) Section 4.1.3.3 Item 2 The text: for example, "<br>" as "<br>". Is this right? Should it be: for example, "<br>" as "<br>".
We don't need to escape the ">" in text content, as far as I can tell. Are you suggesting to escape it anyway for consistency/readability?
Also, should the "must" in "The HTML markup must be escaped" be a MUST?
I think so.
Should rule 2 have the same note regarding the <DIV> element as rule 3? What happens if the type is html and the content is all within <div> .... </div> ?
Good question, and an expected one. Lack of consistency here was the reason I made the same suggestion (to either do it for both types, or not to do for it XHTML).
...
I'd like to remind us of another related issue raised a few days ago (<http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14045.html>). XHTML content is currently restricted to XHTML Basic (see <http://atompub.org/2005/04/04/draft-ietf-atompub-format-07.html#rfc.section.4.1.3.3>, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/>). As far as I can tell, this means *no styling*:
- <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/#s1.3.1>: "style" attribute not supported (but "class" is), but
- as we require content to be legal within xhtml:div, there's no way to specify CSS information.
Although I think it is probably a very good idea to stick with basic markup inside the feed, this seems to introduce an unfortunate disparity between HTML and XHTML, which will result in
- people ignoring the XHTML Basic restriction, or, even worse,
- people using HTML instead of XHTML to workaround this distinction.
I'd propose to go back to XHTML 1.0 "Strict" instead.
Best regards, Julian
