Sam Ruby wrote:
Nothing changes for Tim, he can continue to produce the output he's producing currently.
What Tim is syndicating does not match the content on his site. Without this Pace, the div element would need to be considered part of the content.
What difference does this make in practice? HTML defines DIV as...
"These elements define content to be inline (SPAN) or block-level (DIV) but impose no other presentational idioms on the content."
(<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-DIV>)
3) More feeds will be harder to read (that's why I asked you to experiment with alternate serializations.
Whether something is easier to read seems to be a matter of taste: I certainly prefer a globally scoped XHTML namespace declaration, and no additional DIV elements.
Fair. However, a globally scoped XHTML namespace declaration will require every xhtml tag to be explicitly namespaced.
(unless we make it the default namespace, which usually won't make sense).
"- Requiring the namespace declaration on a particular element means (a) profiling XMLNS, (b) defeating potential space optimizations by having the namespace declaration only once, and (c) breaks XML toolkits that do not provide full control over where namespace declarations appear.
Nothing in this pace requires such a declaration.
"When a Text construct or atom:content's type is "XHTML", require it to have a single xhtml:div as a child, and require that div to declare the XHTML namespace."
Am I looking at the wrong pace? (<http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceXhtmlNamespaceDiv>)
- if this pace gets accepted, I would ask for the same DIV container element for HTML content for reasons of symmetry."
Are you suggesting that the following would need to be required for symmetry?
<div> ... </div>
Yes.
Suggesting this seems petty.
Best regards, Julian
-- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
