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 format. Please cite correctly. I also posted the following clarification in <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg12697.html>:
"OK, I'll try to rephrase: changing the protocol format because one implementor says that this makes it easier to implement IMHO is a bad idea. Of course things look differently if this issue affects more platforms/parsers/toolkits.
So yes, more information is needed."
Yes, I want a spec that is simple. I also want a spec that average people can implement simply and correctly.
We have seen on this very mailing list people who have an above average understanding of XML trip over this particular area numerous times.
I am not content to create a format for which the answers to such common user errors is "so be it".
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. One way to do this is by using an <xhtml:div> element as the content of the <atom:content> element and specifying the XHTML namespace on that div element. Here are some examples: ... [use proposed examples] There are other ways to declare the namespace URI for XHTML content; this specification does not limit the placement of such declarations in any way."
Best regards, Julian
-- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
