Yeah, a doctype would cause havoc. But a namespace, I think, would be correct. In fact, if you look at the example in the protocols, the XHTML namespace *is* provided on the html tag: http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219#PostABody Doug On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Matthew Wilson wrote: > > At 15:19 23/01/03 -0600, Doug Daniels wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > >I'm trying to figure out how to format the body of annotations for > >annozilla, and there doesn't seem to be a standard in place. Right now, > >Amaya 7.1 is creating annotation bodies that look like: > > > > <html> > > <head> > > <title>Annotation of whatever</title> > > </head> > > <body> > > <p>some body text goes here</p> > > </body> > > </html> > > > > > >this sort of annotation 1) has no doctype and 2) has no namespace. as > >such, when annotest.w3.org serves this document up with mimetype > >"application/xhtml+xml", poor mozilla becomes utterly confused. seeing a > >standards-compliant mimetype, it tries to render in standards compliance > >mode. however, without a namespace and/or doctype, there's no styling > >info, and the whole process gets hosed. > > > >so, I suggest that we have our clients, especially amaya, put a namespace > >and/or doctype in the body html. > > A doctype would presumably cause havoc when the annotation body is posted > along with the annotation information. > > Perhaps if the annotation server used a MIME type of 'text/html' ? > > Matthew >Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 16:36:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:19 GMT