[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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>
>
|
