* Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-23 10:50]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > There is some symmetry here: with @type="xml", you have to > > Which @type="xml"? Did you mean @type="text/xml"?
Sorry, I meant any XML media type. > > enclose a full XML document, which will always have a root > > element. The pseudo-XHTML DIV required for @type="xhtml" > > makes XHTML fragments behave the same way. > > With the difference that this div is not part of the content. Ah! Good catch. > > I don’t know if I like it. I don’t know if it’s a good > > solution. But it is consistent on some level, at least. > > It is not, not at all. > > To everyone here: please, comment on PaceOptionalXhtmlDiv, > either +1 or -1, but at least argument. I was leaning +1 and almost voted that way when you posted the Pace, but I was not sure if I had enough of the picture so I abstained at the time. I’m still not firmly convinced (and intermittently thought maybe it was not so bad to keep the DIV, see above), but I’m still don’t see that it really is necessary. In particular, I don’t see why mandating the pseudo-XHTML DIV is a better solution than promoting correct implementation by way of good examples, which you argued in that thread as well. So +1, absent an overwhelming example that people are more likely to get their namespaces wrong than right. Regards, -- Aristotle
