- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:07:51 -0600
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- CC: Spartanicus <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>, www-html@w3.org
If it were me.... I would include a DOCTYPE and ensure that the
fragment was actually legal xml (the example below is not). Somehting like:
<!DOCTYPE p
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<p>This is <em>really</em> cool</p>
And use a content type of application/xml-external-parsed-entity. Then my parser can look at the DOCTYPE
if it chooses, but no one will think that it is actually XHTML.
Garret Wilson wrote:
> Thanks, but that's not a full solution---how does the application (the
> Wiki, the newsfeed---whatever) know whether to process and interpret
> tags? If it were really plain text, the "this is <em>really</em> cool"
> could be a plain text example of how to use to use markup, rather than
> actual use of markup.
>
> Garret
>
> Spartanicus wrote:
>
>>Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>A common use nowadays, especially with wikis and newsfeeds, is to store
>>>XHTML fragments (such as "this is <em>really</em> cool") to be later
>>>integrated into a larger XHTML document.
>>>
>>>What content type should we use for XHTML fragments?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>As long as the application that processes the fragments handles it
>>properly it shouldn't matter, as these fragments should never be
>>accessible in other ways.
>>
>>I'd use text/plain
>>
>>
>>
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 16:08:20 UTC