• From: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman@i...>
• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:13:50 -0500

> james anderson <James.Anderson@m...> writes:
>
> > > ... it is possible to have a document that is well-formed but
> > > not valid XML 1.0, but still conforms to Namespaces, RDF, or XLink
> > > (though not XHTML, which requires validity for strict conformance).

Well XHTML is no different from any other _document type_.  A document type
such as docbook or XHTML must conform to a DTD or it would not be a document
type!

There is nothing to stop you from using XHTML elements with a namespace in a
hybrid document.

Frank


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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Well-formed and valid
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: Bob Kline <bkline@r...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>
  • Well-formed and valid
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Well-formed and valid
• Next by Date: Re: hierarchical database for repository
• Previous by thread: Well-formed and valid
• Next by thread: Re: Well-formed and valid
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread