• To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:34:59 -0500
• In-reply-to: <02b201c1a077$61f800c0$0a2e249b@n...>
• References: <XVYSJH4WYTD9542WJH1LI97UJHZT75.3c48ab86@MChamp><02a801c1a075$f1ad5190$0a2e249b@n...>

At 06:25 PM 1/18/2002 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:

>How many validators can validate XHTML 1.1?
>
>MSXML bags it because it doesn't accept defaulted xmlns attributes -- and
>since validation is all XML 1.0, I can't see why that should have bearing on
>validation.

MSXML isn't the best yardstick to be using here, it barfs of many things 
related to modularized XHTML, not just a default xmlns attribute.



>How many DTD/schema editors can edit the XHTML 1.1 (e.g. Modularization)
>DTD? None I've found.

Why would you want to be editing that DTD? Or do you mean how many software 
packages support the composition of modularized DTDs?

Ann


Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: TR: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise )
• Next by Date: Namespaces. Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out TheNoise)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by thread: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread