On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:03:09 -1000 (HST), Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Then my point is moot as long as XHTML inline content may be XHTML 1.0
Transitional. A second argument that inline XHTML may be XHTML 1.0
Transitional is that it satisfies the need for well-formed XML.
You do
On 27/1/05 6:23 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But type='TEXT' is only a degenerate case of type='XHTML' (type='XHTML'
with only text content). What value does type='TEXT' add to the format
except the ability of feedvalidator.org to detect cases where there are
element children
On Jan 27, 2005, at 09:41, Tim Bray wrote:
OK, you've advanced this argument several times now. If you want to
change the Atom format to remove type=TEXT, write a Pace (it'll be
short easy) and see if you can build consensus.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceTypeTextRedundant
I have to
I only noticed this thread after looking at the same material through
RDF-tinted spectacles.
A question for the schema mavens: is there *any* clear way of
describing the difference between the three content types
(TEXT/HTML/XHTML) in a machine readable fashion?
In the Rosy-tinted Description
Graham wrote:
On 27 Jan 2005, at 1:34 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceTypeTextRedundant
There are cases where explicit is better than implicit.
Yes. It's more a psychological rather than a technical difference, but
I think it's important (it's like the difference
On Jan 27, 2005, at 17:50, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 27, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Eric Scheid wrote:
however, the spec says:
The content SHOULD be XHTML text and markup that could
validly appear directly within an xhtml:div element.
which could lead others to make the same mistake I must have made.
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 27/1/05 6:23 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But type='TEXT' is only a degenerate case of type='XHTML' (type='XHTML'
with only text content). What value does type='TEXT' add to the format
except the
Quoting from draft-ietf-atompub-format-04:
3.1.1 type Attribute
...
If the value is TEXT, the content of the Text construct MUST NOT
contain child elements. Such text is intended to be presented to
humans in a readable fashion. Thus, software MAY display it using
normal text
On Jan 26, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
What's the difference between:
atom:title type='TEXT'I do not like
![CDATA[]]marqueegt;/atom:title
and
atom:title type='XHTML'I do not like
![CDATA[]]marqueegt;/atom:title
?
Shouldn't both render as I do not like marquee?
Yeah, but if you
On Jan 26, 2005, at 23:18, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 26, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
What's the difference between:
atom:title type='TEXT'I do not like
![CDATA[]]marqueegt;/atom:title
and
atom:title type='XHTML'I do not like
![CDATA[]]marqueegt;/atom:title
?
Shouldn't both render
On Jan 26, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
FWIW, with the exception of content, I think allowing only %inline XHTML
elements would make more sense than allowing %flow.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Tim Bray wrote:
Anyone else pro or con on this one? -Tim
This has elegance and is intuitively
On Jan 26, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
But if you can always substitute type='TEXT' with type='XHTML' but not
the other way round, what's the point of having type='TEXT' in the
spec?
With type='TEXT' you know it's not going to contain any (X)HTML
formatting, so you don't have to
On Jan 27, 2005, at 00:45, Robert Sayre wrote:
But guess what, TEXT is *never* coming out of the spec, because it
will eventually become impossible to write something that looks like
markup if we don't have it.
How so? What does type='TEXT' make possible to write that type='XHTML'
with a single
On 27/1/05 9:24 AM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand what your example is demonstrating.
How would the above be different from:
title
type='XHTML'Iamp;nbsp;doamp;nbsp;notamp;nbsp;likeamp;nbsp;lt;
marquee/title
title type='XHTML'Ido not like
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 26, 2005, at 23:46, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 26, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
But if you can always substitute type='TEXT' with type='XHTML' but
not the other way round, what's the point of having type='TEXT' in
the spec?
With type='TEXT' you know it's not
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 26, 2005, at 23:40, Lucas Gonze wrote:
XHTML doesn't have styling elements like font, HTML does.
Both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and HTML 4.01 Transitional have font. Neither
XHTML 1.0 Strict nor HTML 4.01 Strict has font.
Then my point is moot as long
16 matches
Mail list logo
