[ discussion of basic vs. strict and validity wrt xhtml/html elided ] | >I'd propose to go back to XHTML 1.0 "Strict" instead. | | Very good point. A very strong +1.
Do we really want to go here? I hadn't interpreted the Atom format
spec as requiring that the content of the xhtml:div be valid according
to any particular schema. If that's our intent, I think this paragraph
needs to be reworded to make that clearer:
3. If the value of "type" is "xhtml", the content of atom:content
MUST be a single XHTML div element
[W3C.REC-xhtml-basic-20001219]. The XHTML div MUST contain XHTML
text and markup that could validly appear within an XHTML div
element.
I don't naturally associate the "MUST" in that last sentence with
"validity" in the sense of "MUST be valid". Perhaps I should.
But I hope not. I don't really want to have to rev the Atom format
spec when XHTML 2.0 comes out. With care, I want to just put XHTML 2.0
stuff in my xhtml:div elements and let the down-stream appliation work
it out.
At least that's what I think I want.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.
pgp6NvNo7ofPx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
