Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 8:39:54 PM, James Holderness wrote:
> This has got nothing to do with second-guessing. Just pretend for a moment > that there was no such thing as the "xhtml" type. Now the question is what > is the correct way for an aggregator to display an "application/xhtml+xml" > document. There's nothing in the spec that says an aggregator can't display > that document inline. That's not second-guessing, that's an implementation > choice. The fact that displaying such a document inline turns out to involve > the same process as the "xhtml" type is irrelevant. Assuming that the document's /html/head section is irrelevant and discarding it, even when the publisher has specifically used non-core types to send the full document, is second-guessing the user though. Eg: perhaps the publisher is attempting to send a HTML document that they saved in Word, full of CSS styles, that is intended for printing. [*] I agree that how you display such content is just an implementation choice, but if the publisher has specifically used a non-core type to label content, I think it is a better choice to just treat the content identically to any other non-core type, and probably display a download link. -- Dave
