A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-22 11:35]: >> * 4.1.3.1 The "type" attribute >> >> Can I circumvent the DIV element by using the media type of >> XHTML? (I really dislike this combined construct by the way.) > > I used to find it extremely horrible. Now I’m not sure. > > There is some symmetry here: with @type="xml", you have to
Which @type="xml"? Did you mean @type="text/xml"? > enclose a full XML document, which will always have a root > element. The pseudo-XHTML DIV required for @type="xhtml" makes > XHTML fragments behave the same way. With the difference that this div is not part of the content. > I don’t know if I like it. I don’t know if it’s a good solution. > But it is consistent on some level, at least. It is not, not at all. To everyone here: please, comment on PaceOptionalXhtmlDiv, either +1 or -1, but at least argument. See also further explanation and technical arguments in "Consensus call on last raft of issues" [1] [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15320.html -- Thomas Broyer
