Egon Schmid wrote:

> From: "Hojtsy Gabor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>>>is there any reason that we have only <?xml encoding="..."?>
>>>instead of <?xml version="1.0" encoding="..."?>
>>>as first line in files included by manual.xml?
>>>
>>Yes. Encoding is needed, version is optional :)
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-TextDecl
>>
> 
> We donīt need encodings in every file. 

> It worked for many years
> without that encoding in EVERY file.

> Iīm sure it is only needed in
> manual.xml or some files included.


this is true for jade / OpenJade
but some XSLT processors might be more picky about standard conformance

> 
> Version strings are IMHO also nonsense.


i want to convert the function reference files to docbook 4

i want to use XSLT to do so as this requires converting the current 
<funcsynopsis> structure to <methodsynopsis> which i definetly won't
do by hand

its easier to do this by transforming single files then by working
on the complete manual so i need complete valid <?xml headers in
every file under a function directory
(sablotron won't accept input files without version attribute)

so as i have to add version attributes for my private use anyway,
why shouldn't i publish the modified files?

please do not draw conclusions from a simple sample (jade) 

if you can't prove your assumptions by quoting a standard




Reply via email to