norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2003/09/18/unescmarkup/comments.atom2012-02-13T08:56:07.317039ZComment 1 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012003-09-24T18:14:01Z2003-09-24T18:14:01ZTobi

"Allow markup and insist that it be well-formed.

This is arguably the hardest thing to do, but it's not really that hard, is it?"

I agree that it isn't very hard. RSS is XML thus must be well-formed (and valid).

Thus people and tools creating RSS (and similiar formats) can be expected and required to and should be able to make sure that inlined XHTML is well-formed as well.

Tobi

Comment 2 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022003-09-24T18:21:06Z2003-09-24T18:21:06ZTobi

... and it might be a good idea to put XHTML 1 in the XHTML 1 namespace.

Tobi

Comment 3 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032003-11-22T03:16:52Z2003-11-22T03:16:52ZRandy Morinda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

HTML is a meme. XHTML may someday replace it, but till then, I dont think you can get around it. I like the "leave them on the net somewhere and point to them" solution. That is, SSF.

Comment 4 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00042004-12-28T09:37:37Z2004-12-28T09:37:37ZNolanda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

What not use namespaces? This is what Jabber/XMPP use. For example: 

<funkyxml xmlns="funky:xml">
  <item xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
    <h1>Woohoo!</h1>
    <p>This is in HTML.</p>
  </item>
</funkxml>

Here's a page on how to do this in XHTML. It should also be done with every other XML document too: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#well-formed

- Nolan
Comment 5 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00052005-12-02T18:45:41Z2005-12-02T18:45:41ZPaul Downeyda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Over two years later, and I'm sitting looking at a WS-I monitor log.xml file and it contains captured SOAP messages as escaped content .. Grr ..

You know what would help folks like me a lot is if we knew how to base64binary encode/decode in XSLT, but anyway, my version of a SOAP log file will embed captured XML documents as XML.

Comment 6 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00062005-12-14T16:00:06Z2005-12-14T16:00:06ZNeil Greenwoodda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I'm getting 404 errors when clicking on the links to your example feeds and doc2.html.

Comment 7 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00072005-12-14T17:54:28Z2005-12-14T17:54:28ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Bah. I don't know when that happened. Sorry. Fixed now.

Comment 8 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00082005-12-18T20:39:28Z2005-12-18T20:39:28ZPeter Flynnda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I've also been gently and not-so-gently pushing people away from CDATA and from escaped markup in the XML FAQ for a while as well, and I agree we simply haven't reached the mass market on this. We need to shout LOUDER!

It's a form of Tag Abuse, and as such I think it's time to resuscitate The Society for the Definitive Abolition of Tag Abuse (SDATA). All who grok the problem are welcome!

Comment 9 on /2003/09/18/unescmarkuphttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00092010-02-03T22:46:19Z2010-02-03T22:46:19ZSeth Russellda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Your three solutions strike me a bit like a "let them eat cake" kind of thing. If a website allows some anonymous user to type in HTML which is then sanitized and published in an atom feed, then none of your solutions can be used. I suppose that one could attempt to doctor the input to make it well formed, but i don't know how to do that. So what is the solution from the ivory tower?