Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
All these files have prologs. 1 and 2 have prologs that contain document type declarations only. 3 and 4 have prologs that have both XML declarations and document type declarations. The confusion is merely a case of a misuse of terminology. 1. text/html without ?xml declaration [prolog]: xhtmlwithoutprolog.html (note: valid XHTML 1.0 Strict) 2. text/xml without ?xml declaration [prolog]: xhtmlwithoutprolog.xml (note: valid XHTML 1.0 Strict) 3. text/html with ?xml declaration [prolog]: xhtmlwithprolog.html (note: valid XHTML 1.0 Strict) 4. text/xml with ?xml declaration [prolog]: xhtmlwithprolog.xml (note: valid XHTML 1.0 Strict) Mike Chris Bentley wrote: >> I don't think Tantek would say that since it's clearly not correct and >> Tantek is usually correct. -Tim > > > How else should I interpret these examples? > http://tantek.com/XHTML/Test/minimal.html#combos > > in any case thanks to you both for the clarification. > > chris, > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> >
|
