* Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-22 11:35]:
> * 3.1.1.3 XHTML
>
> I would like to see "valid XHTML" more clearly defined. There
> are a lot of different XHTML versions I know of and some might
> not include a DIV element at all... You have XHTML 1 (in three
> versions), XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic, HTML5 (Web Applications
> 1.0). (Web Forms 2.0 extends XHTML 1...) Et cetera.
I vote for punting the validity issue. I don’t think we can
reasonably enforce any stronger restriction that requiring
well-formedness here. Browsers which understand
application/xhtml+xml behave that way, FWIW.
It’s probably best to tell people that they are likely to get
inconsistent results at best if they try to stick a frameset
document or something equally silly in their feed, but not to
prohibit them from doing so.
We can’t anticipate what direction XHTML will take.
> * 4.2.2 The "atom:category" Element
>
> Why is significant information hidden in attributes? That is
> bad for i18n and prevents people from defining the expansion of
> an abbreviation, for example.
Struck me as odd as well.
> * Links
>
> I don't understand why we have so many different link
> constructs. <atom:link href="iri"/>,
> <atom:image>iri</atom:image>, <atom:uri>iri</atom:uri>,
> <atom:content src="iri"/>.
>
> Can't we name them consistently? I'd suggest 'href' or 'url'.
> ('url' is used in CSS and extensions of HTML and XHTML 1 made
> by the WHATWG.)
+1
I’m pretty sure that the latter two changes are not
possible/permissible at this stage of the process, though.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
