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. 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."
My issue with that wording is that it doesn't make it clear whether the xhtml:div that is added is to be considered a part of the content or not.
I'd assume it's part of the content because that's what the spec currently says.
Put another way, how does the consumer know that if a given xhtml:div element is part of the content, or was added per the above?
It is, unless the spec says otherwise.
Julian, you previously said "Let's make the spec as clear and simple as possible." How about this:
xhtml:div is required. xhtml:div is not part of the content.
Clear. Simple. And difficult to get wrong.
Well, but not sufficient as spec text right?
To summarize my p.o.v.:
- the spec shouldn't require any specific container element for XHTML content,
- the spec should warn people about that the child elements MUST be in the XHTML namespace if the recipient is supposed to interpret them as as XHTML markup,
- whether or not a feed producer puts in a <div> container doesn't seem to be relevant to me as it doesn't affect the semantics of what the text construct carries.
Best regards, Julian
-- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
