At 17:34 05/04/09, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>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.
Correct. From http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#syntax: The right angle bracket (>) MAY be represented using the string ">", and MUST, for compatibility, be escaped using either ">" or a character reference when it appears in the string "]]>" in content, when that string is not marking the end of a CDATA section.
I'm slightly surprised to get such a comment from the "XML Directorate". But I guess their main job isn't to check lowly syntax details.
>Are you suggesting to escape it anyway for consistency/readability?
Wouldn't be more readable, in my eyes.
>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
>I'd propose to go back to XHTML 1.0 "Strict" instead.
Very good point. A very strong +1.
Regards, Martin.
