- 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