• To: <xml-dev@l...>, "Ann Navarro" <ann@w...>
• Subject: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:38:27 -0500
• References: <XVYSJH4WYTD9542WJH1LI97UJHZT75.3c48ab86@MChamp> <02a801c1a075$f1ad5190$0a2e249b@n...> <4.3.2.7.2.20020118183331.00d284f0@m...>

> 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.

Sigh, but that's _exactly_ the problem, conformance with MSXML is used as a
yardstick by many many organizations (as Len notes). If I can't simply
browse a modularized XHTML document in IE ... as _XML_ then people insist
that there is something wrong with the _DTD_. Sigh.

>
>
>
> >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?
>

Composition, right. I don't mean to imply that none can, just none that I
own (except Notepad).

Jonathan

• 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: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by Date: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• 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