+1
On 9/2/06, Asbjørn Ulsberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:19:35 +0200, James Holderness
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just because a feed appears to contain well-formed xhtml content today,
> that doesn't mean it's going to be well-formed tomorrow. Encouraging
> people to use xhtml when they don't know enough to have made that
> decision themselves is just asking for trouble. Sooner or later they're
> going to end up with broken xml which will be completely unreadable in
> many aggregators.
Well, that completely depends on how we present this information to the
user. I was not thinking of a simple message saying "This is valid XHTML,
change @type to 'xhtml' ASAP, you newb!", but more along the lines of
informing the user that the content looks like wellformed XHTML, that he
can read more about it here and there, why he should try to keep it
wellformed and why he should not change it if he's not sure of its
welformedness.
Something like that.
> Also, escaped html tends to be better supported by aggregators anyway.
That's today. I would hope and assume that this changes in the future.
--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354
