Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
roddey@u... scripsit:
> Does not the 'X' in XHTML pretty much mean that technically there should be no
> 'non-strict' version? I mean if its HTML, its HTML. But, if its XML, then it
> needs to be well formed XML. I think that its going a little too far in the
> direction of backwards compatability to do anything else. All parsers out there
> now would reject non-strict HTML as not well formed anyway, right? I'm assuming
> that non-strict (or traditional, or classic or whatever it is :-) means you
> don't need a </p> for every <p> and so on, right?
No. "Strict" means "guaranteed not to have deprecated element types and
attributes" in the HTML context; it has nothing to do with SGML vs. XML.
--
John Cowan cowan@c...
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
