On Apr 20, 2005, at 05:21, Graham wrote:
iii) Require that xhtml and *xml content elements have only a single
child node. That is, all xml must be wrapped in an enclosing element
(eg contenttext bbold/b more text/content would be invalid).
-1. The Atom content element is the wrapper.
If your
On 20 Apr 2005, at 9:29 am, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 20, 2005, at 05:21, Graham wrote:
iii) Require that xhtml and *xml content elements have only a single
child node. That is, all xml must be wrapped in an enclosing element
(eg contenttext bbold/b more text/content would be invalid).
-1. The
On Apr 20, 2005, at 11:53, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 20, 2005, at 05:21, Graham wrote:
iii) Require that xhtml and *xml content elements have only a single
child node. That is, all xml must be wrapped in an enclosing element
(eg contenttext bbold/b more text/content would
Just to address the Pace. I support it, but I don't think it's
necessary to add it to XML data types, since normally [this would]
mean that the atom:content element would contain a single child
element which would serve as the root element of the XML document of
the indicated type, which is
Thomas Broyer wrote:
I must admit I still can't understand why the div container was
introduced an how it has survived 'til now... (this is NOT a criticism,
just a remark; I'd be glad if someone could point me to the thread(s)
where it has been discussed and adopted)
Take a look at the
On 20 Apr 2005, at 7:53 pm, Thomas Broyer wrote:
I'd expect my feed and entry titles not to be block-content but rather
inline content, so a div wouldn't be an appropriate container
regarding its structural meaning.
Let me stop you right there. The first thing to note is that the div is
trivial
Graham wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005, at 7:53 pm, Thomas Broyer wrote:
People wanting containers to carry their XHTML namespace declarations
(in order to produce prefix-free documents) can choose among the
inline-level span or the block-level div elements. If their content is
already in a container
It may be too late, but either way, I'd like to get this into concrete
form. Does anyone think this is worse than requiring the xhtml:div?
Better?
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceXmlContentWrapper
== Abstract ==
Replace the requirement for an xhtml:div wrapper for
content[type=xhmtl
Antone Roundy wrote:
It may be too late, but either way, I'd like to get this into concrete
form. Does anyone think this is worse than requiring the xhtml:div?
Better?
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceXmlContentWrapper
Definitely better!
+1 for me
--
Thomas Broyer
I don't see the point of this. The problem Sam discussed can be solved
without it and without requiring the div. Death to the div is not part
of the content.
i) Encourage xhtml users to wrap content in a div
ii) Require that they before adding any wrapper, they check whether
there already is
10 matches
Mail list logo
