James M Snell wrote:
First off I wouldn't recommend using XML content at all because I don't
think the aggregator support is very widespread yet. But if you were
-1, bad recommendation. Applications should feel free to use the full
capabilities of Atom content model regardless of current feed reader
capabilities.
Ok. Let me put it another way. Let's say my neighbour came to me and asked
whether he should be using xhtml for his content type or html. Here's what I
would tell him:
If he uses xhtml I can guarantee at least one aggregator that will not be
able to see his content at all. If he needs to use a less than sign or
ampersand at any point I can guarantee a further 4-13 [1] aggregators will
have problems displaying his content.
If he uses html I can guarantee at least one aggregator will have problems
displaying his markup, but the content will still be basically readable. If
he needs to use a less than sign or ampersand at any point I know of only
one other aggregator that might [1] have problems displaying that content.
He is of course welcome to choose whichever format he wants, but my
recommendation, based on the limited testing that I've done, would be to go
with the format least likely to cause problems. In other words I wouldn't
reommend xhtml.
You are of course free to recommend the exact opposite to your neighbour.
Regards
James
[1] Depends on what kind of escaping his authoring tool uses.
