Mailing-List: contact abdera-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of stephen.duncan@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=TJCaLEzh5vOKvdq/ZrYoMujO+ZNyjmHNkMR6KDtkmtmKK4fehBulGnJ8TUlT/HFGT0YwEXQhpHvH8Hcq08XpslKCVSPiz3BQ0KqL6ea7Q7DheDghnEJTBP2YleAx9hNkrFjn9+H/jgJYuJ1eQmFkGCElL1JNOBCYAvDum++4ReY=
Message-ID: <b20ce4ed0606271501s2a776ee8v1b275e751f2d6830@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:01:32 -0400
From: "Stephen Duncan" <stephen.duncan@gmail.com>
To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: XHTML Content
In-Reply-To: <b20ce4ed0606271500g6ff6ad8epcec206bf02c6d830@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <68fba5c50606271205r6daccc11k386b3ab1fe594ac1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44A186F2.8090801@gmail.com>
	 <b20ce4ed0606271443t4650e05fmb578e68015117dd7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68fba5c50606271446n6276de99sd150586a757e65ed@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b20ce4ed0606271500g6ff6ad8epcec206bf02c6d830@mail.gmail.com>

God-blast it.  That should be "I'm NOT trying to make..." :)

-Stephen

On 6/27/06, Stephen Duncan <stephen.duncan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Come on now, play nice.  I'm trying to make a tortured reading; I'm
> attempting to make the most clear reading from the text.  The HTML
> section says "that markup" right after referring to the DIV that it
> could validly appear within.  I'm sorry, but the clearest reading of
> that means that you're referring to the div.  But it's ambiguous.
>
> On rereading, however, I realize that the XHTML section simply says
> "the markup" (I'd previously skimmed and I guess assumed it said
> "that" like the HTML section does), and therefore means exactly as you
> said.  And again, on the parallel tex theory, based on this I'd revise
> my guess at the meaning of the HTML seciton to mean the HTML markup.
>
> I was agreeing with you in the first place regarding the validity of
> including the DIV as content, so I was certainly not trying to subvert
> the meaning.  Like it or not, the mismatched language in the two
> sections means that it's not clear; there was no tortured reading,
> only a genuine effort to understand the text.
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 6/27/06, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/27/06, Stephen Duncan <stephen.duncan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > meaning that if it helps, you can surround the content with a div (I
> > > don't think Robert is correct in it referring to the content).
> >
> > Sorry guys. I was there, I know what the WG meant, and I know I am
> > correct. Don't try to subvert it with a tortured reading.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Robert Sayre
> >
>
>
> --
> Stephen Duncan Jr
> www.stephenduncanjr.com
>


-- 
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com