On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:36:11 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't we at least give content producers the hint that producing
XHTML content is preferred over HTML? (sorry if I'm opening a can of
worms here)
Sounds reasonable, but as type=XHTML.
Escaping XHMTL seems to be
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 15:28, Sam Ruby wrote:
Here's the key question. Consider the following XML fragment:
summary type='XHTML'div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'Hey,
this is my space, if I want to run a picture of a chair I can. And
its a emnice/em chair./div/summary
Sam Ruby wrote:
That's what I want to change. I've updated the Pace to make this
clearer. I replaced the abstract completely, and added one sentence to
the proposal.
New abstract:
Given that common practice is to include this element, making it
mandatory makes things clearer to both
Julian Reschke wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
That's what I want to change. I've updated the Pace to make this
clearer. I replaced the abstract completely, and added one sentence
to the proposal.
New abstract:
Given that common practice is to include this element, making it
mandatory makes things
I've updated the examples as follows:
Removed the style attribute from the div in one--if the div is not part
of the content, it doesn't make sense to me allow it to control styling
of the content. Yeah, I wrote the original example, but I hadn't
thought through everything clearly enough yet.
Sam Ruby wrote:
New abstract:
Given that common practice is to include this element, making it
mandatory makes things clearer to both people who are producing
consuming tools based on the spec, and people who are producing new
feeds based on copy and paste.
New spec text:
The xhtml:div
On Feb 10, 2005, at 18:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
We have seen on this very mailing list people who have an above
average understanding of XML trip over this particular area numerous
times.
Those trip-ups have not been as much about div vs. no div but about
XMLNS which we can't and should not attempt
Julian Reschke wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
That is consistent with your prior statement that you don't believe
that implementation issues should affect the format:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg12699.html
What I said is that very *specific* implementation issue shouldn't
affect the
Sam Ruby wrote:
Nor am I. The question is what's the best way to enhance the spec. One
alternative suggestion was made by Martin Dürst in
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13531.html:
Note: It is important to make sure that correct namespace declarations
for XHTML are present.
Sam Ruby wrote:
xhtml:div is required. xhtml:div is not part of the content.
Clear. Simple. And difficult to get wrong.
I'd much prefer:
xhtml:div is required. xhtml:div is part of the content.
But I can live with it either way
- James M Snell
On 10 Feb 2005, at 3:35 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
The xhtml:div element itself MUST NOT be considered part of the
content.
What does this mean? Define content and considered please.
Graham
Robert Sayre wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
So do you think we'll have to live with that, or should the spec be
clarified/changed to reduce the chance of people getting it wrong?
I think Sam's approach is best. The objections are all impractical
pedantry.
I think the proposal won't really help
Julian Reschke wrote:
To summarize my p.o.v.:
- the spec shouldn't require any specific container element for XHTML
content,
We continue to talk past one another. The above line is key.
Some examples might help. Perhaps once we are actually understanding
each other's points, then we can work
Sam Ruby wrote:
[..snip excellent rationale..]
So, a desirable characteristic for a container element would be one in
which the default namespace can be set.
That is not a desirable characteristic.
At this point, the discussion can fragment into any number of different
directions.
[...]
Sam Ruby wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Sam, thanks for the long reply. I'll try my best to dig it and to offer
constructive remarks...
To summarize my p.o.v.:
- the spec shouldn't require any specific container element for XHTML
content,
We continue to talk past one another. The above line is
15 matches
Mail list logo
