(BAt 01:35 05/02/11, Sam Ruby wrote:
(B >
(B >Julian Reschke wrote:
(B
(B >> Nor am I. The question is what's the best way to enhance the spec. One (Balternative suggestion was made by Martin D$B—S(Bst in (B<http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13531.html>:
(B >> "Note: It is important to make sure that correct namespace declarations
(B >> for XHTML are present. One way to do this is by using an <xhtml:div>
(B >> element as the content of the <atom:content> element and specifying
(B >> the XHTML namespace on that div element. Here are some examples:
(B >> ... [use proposed examples]
(B >> There are other ways to declare the namespace URI for XHTML content;
(B >> this specification does not limit the placement of such declarations
(B >> in any way."
(B >
(B >My issue with that wording is that it doesn't make it clear whether the (Bxhtml:div that is added is to be considered a part of the content or not.
(B
(BFair point.
(B
(B >Put another way, how does the consumer know that if a given xhtml:div (Belement is part of the content, or was added per the above?
(B >
(B >Julian, you previously said "Let's make the spec as clear and simple as (Bpossible." How about this:
(B >
(B > xhtml:div is required. xhtml:div is not part of the content.
(B >
(B >Clear. Simple. And difficult to get wrong.
(B
(BHow about the following alternative:
(B
(B xhtml:div is not required. xhtml:div is part of the content.
(B
(BClear. Simple. And difficult to get wrong :-).
(B
(BIf that's not enough, we can add a note, e.g.:
(B
(B Note: A xhtml:div is just an empty wrapper; it will in general
(B not affect the processing or display of the content.
(B
(B
(BRegards, Martin.
