• From: james anderson <mecom-gmbh@m...>
• To: Ingo Macherius <Ingo.Macherius@T...>
• Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:44:29 +0100

i've yet to understand why, but isn't that the way it needs to be?

Ingo Macherius wrote:

> >      <http://www.scripting.com/siteChanges.xml>

> It is not valid XML, because of 3 things:
More exact: It is neither well-formed nor valid XML ...

> 1)  the <?XML version="1.0"> PI is missing.

Ouch. This is not well-formed at all.
Use <?xml version="1.0"> as to the latest PR.

        ++im
 

• Follow-Ups:
  • LISTRIVIA (was Re: XML application)
    • From: Peter Murray-Rust <peter@u...>
  • Re: XML application
    • From: "Ingo Macherius" <Ingo.Macherius@T...>

• References:
  • XML application
    • From: "Meltsner, Kenneth J" <Kenneth.J.Meltsner@j...>
  • Re: XML application
    • From: "Ingo Macherius" <Ingo.Macherius@T...>

• Prev by Date: Any XSL tool!
• Next by Date: Re: XML application
• Previous by thread: Re: XML application
• Next by thread: Re: XML application
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread