On Apr 11, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Norman Walsh wrote:
Sigh. I'm not sure what to do now. I think it would be nice if Atom 1.0 could work with XHTML 1.0 and 2.0. But that means tinkering a bit with the language.
We need to do a bit of cleanup. But bear in mind that the measuring stick is interoperability. In the case of type="html", the language is well-taken (from 3.1.1.1):
If the value of "type" is "html", the content of the Text construct MUST NOT contain child elements, and SHOULD be suitable for handling as HTML
"suitable for handling as HTML" may be a bit hand-wavy but corresponds exactly to reality and is about as far as we can realistically go. For XHTML on the other hand:
If the value of "type" is "xhtml", the content of the Text construct 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.
First, the word "validly" has to go. There is little (any?) interoperability benefit, but immense costs, in requiring XHTML validation. I suggest rewording to make this congruent with the HTML language
If the value of "type" is "xhtml". the content of the Text construct
MUST be a single XHTML div element. The XHTML div must contain XHTML
1.0 [XHTML traditional reference] text and markup that SHOULD be suitable
for handling as XHTML 1.0 Traditional.
I recommend we use Transitional, since I don't think we should get into micro-managing the purity of the payload; but clearly Frameset would be going too far. -Tim
