- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 20:07:41 -0400
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, foolistbar@googlemail.com
>> Currently the only element allowed "wherever a
>> subdocument fragment is allowed in a compound
>> document" is the html element. RFC4287
>> mandates that within an Atom document, for
>> an XHTML text construct, it must have
>> a single div element as the content.
> Given that Atom or another spec could as easily
> have allowed any flow content, or ...
> My intention wasn't to disallow ...
> My intention was just to allow <html> to be used
> in other vocabularies where those vocabularies just
> specified a generic inclusion point.
Why not just say so explicitly? For example, just after:
<div class=example>
<p>The SVG specification defines the SVG <code>foreignObject</code>
element as allowing foreign namespaces to be included, thus allowing
compound documents to be created by inserting subdocument content under
that element. <em>This</em> specification defines the XHTML <code><a
href="#html">html</a></code> element as being allowed where subdocument
fragments are allowed in a compound document. Together, these two
definitions mean that placing an XHTML <code><a
href="#html">html</a></code> element as a child of an SVG
<code>foreignObject</code> element is conforming.</p>
</div>
add
<div class=example><p>
The ATOM specification explicitly permits the use of HTML:DIV.
Therefore HTML:DIV is permitted inside an ATOM document, even though
it would not be permitted to act as the root of a HTML subdocument in
a generic XML context.
</p></div>
-jJ
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 00:08:22 UTC