Philippe Lhoste wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >>So when they say OK they really haven't checked anything, when they say >>NOT OK they might be on crack, and like all namespace-unaware things >>they're a dead branch of the XML tree. But feel free to use them anyway :) > > So, I suppose I should remove them from my XHTML pages as well :-)
Unfortunately XHTML requires that you include the DOCTYPE. It's a mistake but one we have to live with. Don't try to validate XHTML with the DOCTYPE, it won't produce useful results. > Hmm, perhaps no, I believe we should avoid the <?xml version="1.0"...?> I avoid it for all XML documents. So long as you stick to UTF-8 or UTF-16 (which makes one's life a lot simpler) and stick to version 1.0 (one rarely needs 1.1) it contains no useful information. > line because some browsers choke on it, and some (other?) browsers need > this DOCTYPE line to choose a behavior on HTML/CSS rendering... There are some simple Apache tricks you can use to send your XHTML documents as application/xhtml+xml to up-to-date browsers and as text/html to obsolete tag-soupers like IE. -- Robin Berjon Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/ ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
