Even though XHTML 2.0 cannot be carried under type="xhtml", I don't think that whole XHTML 2.0 document is required to be placed under type="application/xhtml+xml".
XHTML 2.0, on the other hand, is a member of the XHTML family according to the specification. == Copied from http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/introduction.html == ********************************* 1.3. What are the XHTML 2 Modules? XHTML 2 is a member of the XHTML Family of markup languages. It is an XHTML Host Language as defined in XHTML Modularization. As such, it is made up of a set of XHTML Modules that together describe the elements and attributes of the language, and their content model. XHTML 2 updates many of the modules defined in XHTML Modularization 1.0, and includes the updated versions of all those modules and their semantics. XHTML 2 also uses modules from Ruby, XML Events, and XForms. The modules defined in this specification are largely extensions of the modules defined in XHTML Modularization 1.0. This specification also defines the semantics of the modules it includes. So, that means that unlike earlier versions of XHTML that relied upon the semantics defined in HTML 4, all of the semantics for XHTML 2 are defined either in this specification or in the specifications that it normatively references. Even though the XHTML 2 modules are defined in this specification, they are available for use in other XHTML family markup languages. Over time, it is possible that the modules defined in this specification will migrate into the XHTML Modularization specification. ********************************** Anyway, I know that HTML 5 is under development and provide good backward compatibility. Franklin -----Original Message----- From: Henri Sivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 22:49 To: Tse Shing Chi ((Franklin/Whale)) Cc: 'Atom Syntax' Subject: Re: Forward Compatibility 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/
