On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:45:56 +0200, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But XHTML 2.0 is a different language form XHTML 1.x. Why do you think XHTML 2.0 fragments should be allowed as type='xhtml'? Just because XHTML 2.0 has "XHTML" in the name?
Yes.
If it is not about the name, why not DocBook NG fragments?
Because "DocBook" does not have "XHTML" in its name, and will not under any circumstance cause confusion with Atom using the term "XHTML" as a type for content. Since XHTML 1.0 and 2.0 and most likely 2.1, 3.0 and whatnot will bear the names "XHTML", we should allow all of them to be used in Atom.
Or, we should restrict the allowed XHTML versions in the specification to just include 1.x. That leads to different problems, though, since people would then think they could use XHTML 1.0 Frameset or XHTML 1.1, which are totally different from one another, and will hurt interoperability a great deal.
I'd say that we should limit the allowed XHTML versions (including both version number and DOCTYPEs) to be used in Atom to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1. Since XHTML 2.0 isn't finished yet, it is a bit problematic including language about it in the Atom specification, so I think we should leave it out at least until it is done. Then we can "patch" Atom somehow with an I-D or whatever to include language about XHTML 2.0.
-- Asbj�rn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ �He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away�
