- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:37:31 -0500
- To: ogbujic@ccf.org
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:08 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: [...] > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:45 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > > What _do_ the implementations check or depend on? > > MIME type, XML-wf-ness, and root element namespace? > > GRDDL.py (in its current form) only checks for XML-wf-ness and > successful evaluation of the (unambiguous) XPaths outlined in the > specification. There are no XPaths in the relevant section. Oh... wait... yes there are... though only in the informative mechanical rules... I think those rules match, for example, XHTML inside Atom; even inside an Atom document that says "The following XHTML is false/fictuional/counter-factual..." > > If so, I'd specify something like this... > > > > If an information resource has a text/html representation > > whose body is an XML document whose root element > > bears the local name 'html' and the > > namespace name 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml', then ... > > > > +1 On this That quick sketch excludes the following mime types: text/xml application/xml application/xhtml+xml I think that's not a good way to specify it... but I do think the media type has to specify XML... i.e. text/plain is no good. > However, my original question remains: does our dependency on XHTML > clash with the faithful infoset 'stance'? No. (i.e. not as far as I can tell.) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 18:37:33 UTC