Re: format for body of annotations

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 UTC