Michael Smith wrote:
Keeping stuff like this optional and in the editing aid realm becomes difficult when people write specs like this:http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/conformance.html#strictThat is a disappointing thing to see. I had not realized until now that the spec says a valid XHTML 2.0 document _must_ contain an xsi:schemaLocation attribute.
Indeed, very sad. There are also other strange things inside spec. For example XHTML 2.0 uses completely different namespace than XHTML 1.0/1.1. I wonder why if the semantics of all XHTML 1.0/1.1 elements is the same as in XHTML 2.0?
I raised objection against this namespace thing. May be it is worth to do the same for xsi:schemaLocation thing. Just to make sure that working with XHTML 2.0 wouldn't be hassle for us, RELAXers.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kosek.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Profesionální školení a poradenství v oblasti technologií XML. Podívejte se na náš nově spuštěný web http://DocBook.cz Podrobný přehled školení http://xmlguru.cz/skoleni/ ------------------------------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
