Welcome ;)
With the caveat that I'm not an i18n expert; what do you mean by
'different location'? IRIs don't have a separate level of %-encoding on
top of that used by URIs; rather, as I understand it, they leverage the
URI %-encoding mechanism, by just standardising on UTF-8 for the
character
At 11:10 05/04/12, Porges wrote:
OK, first-time poster :)
I was just thinking about IRIs recently and thought about a possible
source of ambiguousness. If the URI element can be EITHER an IRI or a
URI, then:
urihttp://example.com/200%25equalsZero/uri
This is both a valid IRI and a valid URI,
Thank you for the correction, Martin Dürst.
...I have a bit of a problem reading technical documents, my eyes tend
to glaze over a bit...
Please don't beat me too hard :)
On Apr 12, 2005 7:09 PM, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:10 05/04/12, Porges wrote:
OK, first-time poster
At 7:58 PM +1200 4/12/05, Porges wrote:
...I have a bit of a problem reading technical documents, my eyes tend
to glaze over a bit...
Please don't beat me too hard :)
Note to everyone who feels the way Porges does:
At this point in the process, having implementers who are unfamiliar
with all the
On Apr 11, 2005, at 22:23, Norman Walsh wrote:
But I hope not. I don't really want to have to rev the Atom format
spec when XHTML 2.0 comes out. With care, I want to just put XHTML 2.0
stuff in my xhtml:div elements and let the down-stream appliation work
it out.
It will be nice to have the div in
On Apr 11, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Norman Walsh wrote:
Sigh. I'm not sure what to do now. I think it would be nice if Atom 1.0
could work with XHTML 1.0 and 2.0. But that means tinkering a bit with
the language.
We need to do a bit of cleanup. But bear in mind that the measuring
stick is
Tim Bray wrote:
We need to do a bit of cleanup. But bear in mind that the measuring
stick is interoperability. In the case of type=html, the language is
well-taken (from 3.1.1.1):
If the value of type is html, the content of the Text construct
MUST NOT contain child elements, and SHOULD be
On Apr 12, 2005, at 3:02 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
How about this text for XHTML:
If the value of type is xhtml, the content of the Text construct
MUST be a single XHTML div element [XHTML transitional reference], and
SHOULD be suitable for handling as XHTML.
+1 --Tim
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:02:48 +0200, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How about this text for XHTML:
If the value of type is xhtml, the content of the Text construct
MUST be a single XHTML div element [XHTML transitional reference], and
SHOULD be suitable for handling as XHTML.
Good,
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
