On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 03:51 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-15 23:05]:...2) It makes it more difficult to determine the type of data. We know it's XML, but to find out whether it's a flavor of XML that we know how to deal with, we have to discover the namespace of the content.
Including the full MIME type is cruft, IMHO, in that it duplicates information that is already there.
Not for non-XML data types, which don't have namespaces.
How about saying that the namespace associated with a particular prefix on the atom:content element level is to be consulted for the type of the content? In the simpler case, this could be supplied as an extra attribute, say @ns.
...which "duplicates information that's already there."
The only ones who need to be particularly careful then are those who create new feeds from existing feeds: they need to be careful to assign appropriate values for @ns attributes rather than just copying them thru blindly. This is not difficult; the necessary tools exist in XSLT/XPath, f.ex.
...which not everyone is going to be using. Copying and pasting @type will be easy for everyone.
3) Some people are still going to do it the way it's being done now, leaving us with the ambiguous status of the div. Is it part of the content or just a container?
Is that really a great concern? Both semantically and presentionally, xhtml:div is neutral, so considering it to be part of the content does not change its interpretation. Thus, I don’t see any harm in eliding the issue altogether.
This question has been discussed before, and the group is divided on it. Actually, it's not presentationally neutral. Consider the difference between these:
<a href="http://www.example.com/";>This is the entry title</a> This is the entry content.
<a href="http://www.example.com/";>This is the entry title</a> <div>This is the entry content.</div>
In the first, the content is displayed inline, and thus the line doesn't break after the link. In the second, there's a linebreak.
See also http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13535.html
