Re: XHTML [WAS: Grouping into a table (for vertical a

  I believe you meant the above criteria. However, even if document does not
  strictly comply to the above, it should be still consider XHTML (just not
  strictly-conformant XHTML) as long as it is well-formed HTML.


As far as XPath/XSLT is concerned a namespace is just part of the name
and having the wrong namespace is just the same (and has the same
effects on template matching) as having the wrong local name.

_You_ may consider that

<x>
  <foo/>
  <bar/>
</x>

is XHTML, but just not "strictly conforming to the XHTML spec" but  it's
not clear if this is really a useful distinction. If by "XHTML but not
strictly conforming" you just mean "well formed XML" why not call it
"well formed XML"?

David

-- 
The LaTeX Companion
  http://www.awprofessional.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0201362996
  http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201362996/202-7257897-0619804


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________