On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:37:42 +0200, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thank you, Asbjørn: this is a delightful little problem. You see, XHTML
validity is specified in terms of DTDs. Near as I can tell, that example
and some of the XHTML examples in the spec are 'invalid' because the
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:42:29 +0200, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Real world example:
[snip example]
What do we have to say about this?
As far as I can see, the code is valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (and thus also
both Transitional, Frameset and XHTML 1.1), so I'm no
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:42:29 +0200, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Real world example:
[snip example]
What do we have to say about this?
As far as I can see, the code is valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (and thus also
both Transitional, Frameset and XHTML 1.1), so I'm not sure what point
you'
[[ wearing my IETF weenie hat, not my co-chair hat ]]
At 10:10 PM +0100 4/13/05, Graham wrote:
-1
I think introducing new core data types negates the point of having
core, well-known data types. XHTML 2.0 is an issue we can solve now.
I think it will be safe to leave any further formats to a new
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:08:42 +0200, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
namely to use a Strict DOCTYPE.
type='xhtml' takes a fragment and Atom is DTDless. Better to stay
away from the word DOCTYPE.
Of course. Still, the allowed elements and attribtues inside the
of
On Apr 14, 2005, at 00:10, Graham wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005, at 8:31 pm, David Powell wrote:
I agree that the Atom RFC shouldn't be a moving target. How about if
we:
Make an IANA registry of Atom Text Types, requiring some level of
RFC to create new ones.
Put text, html, and xhtml in the regis
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:08:42 +0200, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
namely to use a Strict DOCTYPE.
type='xhtml' takes a fragment and Atom is DTDless. Better to stay away
from the word DOCTYPE.
Of course. Still, the allowed elements and attribtues inside the of
Atom Content constructs
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:39:48 +0200, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Multiple proposals already posted for the wording of this
section suggestion a refererence to the XHTML 1.0 Transitional
spec. That would seem to have preempted this problem.
Do we really want to exclude XHTML 1.1 as allowe
On 13 Apr 2005, at 8:31 pm, David Powell wrote:
I agree that the Atom RFC shouldn't be a moving target. How about if
we:
Make an IANA registry of Atom Text Types, requiring some level of
RFC to create new ones.
Put text, html, and xhtml in the registry, and specify that xhtml
means XHTML
* David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 21:50]:
> I agree that the Atom RFC shouldn't be a moving target. How
> about if we:
>
> Make an IANA registry of Atom Text Types, requiring some
> level of RFC to create new ones.
>
> Put text, html, and xhtml in the registry, and specify th
Wednesday, April 13, 2005, 7:06:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> | Also, what do you expect feed readers to support for XHTML versions, etc.
>>
>> I don't have any. I'll tailor my content to suit what the major
>> vendors support, just like I do with my plain old HTML today. In
>> practice, m
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I don't really like this point of view. This is exactly what creates
interoperability problems and people will blame Atom in the end for
promising to solve problems it does not.
Atom promised to solve HTML interop issues?
Robert Sayre
Norman Walsh wrote:
/ Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| 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-stre
On Apr 13, 2005, at 15:37, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 08:25]:
On Apr 13, 2005, at 01:02, Robert Sayre wrote:
[XHTML transitional reference]
Instead of saying "XHTML" it would be clearer to say "XHTML
1.x" or defining it in terms of the XHTML 1.x namespace U
--On April 13, 2005 9:06:59 AM +0300 Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Instead of saying "XHTML" it would be clearer to say "XHTML 1.x" or defining
> it
> in terms of the XHTML 1.x namespace URI.
This could work. "XHTML 1.0" will not be confused with a media type.
When XHTML 2.0 is r
* David Powell wrote:
>I'm asking this because I really don't know whether parameters are
>supposed to be allowed in the "type" attribute or not.
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08283.html
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · T
* AsbjÃrn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 02:35]:
> Or, we should restrict the allowed XHTML versions in the
> specification to just include 1.x. That leads to different
> problems, though, since people would then think they could use
> XHTML 1.0 Frameset or XHTML 1.1, which are totally
* Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 08:25]:
> On Apr 13, 2005, at 01:02, Robert Sayre wrote:
> > [XHTML transitional reference]
>
> Instead of saying "XHTML" it would be clearer to say "XHTML
> 1.x" or defining it in terms of the XHTML 1.x namespace URI.
He already did, no?
Regards,
18 matches
Mail list logo
