On Nov 19, 2006, at 12:10, Tse Shing Chi ((Franklin/Whale)) wrote:
First of all, the media type should still be "application/xhtml +xml" for XHTML 2.0, although application/xml or even text/html may be used.
RFC 3236 makes it pretty clear that it is for XHTML Family documents in the Modularization of XHTML sense. XHTML 2.0 documents are not XHTML Family documents. They are incompatible documents with a confusing name.
I don't think whole XHTML 2.0 document needs to be contained in the content or summary element, it is too complicated. Using the div element is still a suitable way (div is remained in XHTML 2.0 without major changes, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod- structural.html#edef_structural_div) I think.
It is not the same div. It is a completely different div in another namespace. That the local names are identical does not make them the same.
The Atom spec provides shortcuts for plain text, HTML and XHTML 1.x. That's it. Calling an incompatible language "XHTML" doesn't help. As far as Atom is concerned, XHTML 2.0 documents get the same treatment as any other XML document that doesn't use the XHTML 1.x namespace.
(Yes, I am aware of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/ 2006Nov/0025 , but that resolution doesn't really make XHTML 2.0 any more likely to be implemented.)
For browsers' implementation, in fact, XHTML 1.1 is still not well- supported. CSS 2 is another example of poor implementation by browsers. I do think that Atom should not be easy to change or be updated very frequently. That's why Atom should leave some extents of forward compatibility.
If you start from XHTML 1.0 and go forward, you don't end up at XHTML 2.0 but at XHTML5. Embedding XHTML5 in Atom will work out just fine.
Forward is here: http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
