[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Plan B+1 = Plan C+1
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:12:46 -0500
Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> No. Because the XHTML Basic specification defines it as being a
> XHTML family, technically we should follow the Modularization of XHTML
> specification http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization which says we
> should use the XHTML namespace, and make the *modifications* (i.e.
> additions) in a different namespace.
You are absolutely correct. I've modified xcat-xhtml.dtd to reflect this.
The resource element is qualified by the
Thanks for clarifying this.
> > I'm not understanding, what is "xhtml:type"?
> The type atribute in HTML.
Aha, Uche suggested that we rename this to "content-type" which I have done
on the "resource" element. I'm not too particular which attribute name is
used, perhaps we can vote.
<resource content-type="text/dtd+xml" ...> vs.
<resource type="text/dtd+xml" ...>