On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:07 PM, James M Snell wrote:
As an alternative, Feed Readers can provide publishers with a way of
specifying optionally applied styling for feeds and entries.. e.g.,
<feed>
...
<link rel="stylesheet" type="..." href="..." />
...
<entry>
...
<link rel="stylesheet" type="..." href="..." />
...
</entry>
</feed>
Given my opinion on the use of the link element, I suppose I should
propose an alternative:
<ext:style type="text/css">
...
</ext:style>
or
<ext:style src="http://..."; />
Either method permitted, like how we do atom:content. 'type="text/
css"' optional, or is it needed? Warning to those daring to try the
second that some feed readers won't bother downloading the external
file. Warning to publishers that if they specify styles for "body",
for example, some readers may say "there's no body element in the
content, so I'll ignore this rule" (so put the content in a container
with an ID or class and set the style for that instead), and others
may say "how dare you try to take over the styling of the body when
the body element isn't allowed in the content, I'll ignore this
rule", and others may just ignore all or some of it for whatever
reason they wish. Can be at feed or entry level and be intended for
application to its siblings and their children (those with textual
content only--and of course, some clients may not apply it to all
siblings and children even if they are textual). If we really want
to get fancy (big if), we could add @apply-to="content", but then you
get into the qnames in attributes problem... Or we could specify
that it only applies to atom:content and perhaps atom:summary (and
any extension element that explicitly specifies that it applies).
Well, that's enough off the top of my head.
Antone
