Julian Reschke wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
-1 on PaceXhtmlNamespaceDiv
-1 from me as well. It is hack which might be useful for publishing systems (and perhaps aggregators) who do not use the right tools to generate a valid Atom file anyway.
Same here: -1
Can I get one of you three to mock up what Tim's feed should look like?
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg12902.html
- Sam Ruby
I'm not sure I understand this request. We're not asking Tim or anybody else not to use <div> elements, we're asking not to be forced by the spec to select a specific way to emit XHTML when many others do as well.
So, this is a -1 on forcing feed creators to use a very specific serialization format.
This Pace does *not* force feed creators to use a very specific feed format.
Anne had this right... if this Pace is adopted, then the div is part of the format. Otherwise, it is part of the content.
In other words, if Tim's content has a <div> element that he wishes to syndicate, he would simply nest that div. This would be rare.
As it stands, the content that Tim is syndicating does not match the content on his site.
- Sam Ruby
