W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: XHTML 1.1

From: Gannon J. Dick <gdick@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:06:46 -0500
Message-ID: <009001c25e6c$9b19e680$ccab2e04@home2>
To: "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>
Cc: <www-html-editor@w3.org>

Thanks. A footnote or link on the XHTML 1.1 errata page would have been
helpful to me.

I should mention that XHTML 1.0 strict seems to work fine as is for local
validation, which is
how I bumped into this problem.

Gannon J. Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>
To: <gdick@verizon.net>
Cc: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: XHTML 1.1


> "Gannon J. Dick" <gdick@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > In the DTD there is a peculiarity I'm having a hard time getting around.
Perhaps you can make some suggestions.  The following is OK for the W3 HTML
Validator which honors IGNORE over "inaccessable or does not exist".
However, in trying to do validation with MSXML4 this triggers an error.  I
guess MSXML4 looks for the document first, then ignores it.
> >
> > <!-- Pre-Framework Redeclaration placeholder  .................... -->
> > <!-- this serves as a location to insert markup declarations
> >      into the DTD prior to the framework declarations.
> > -->
> > <!ENTITY % xhtml-prefw-redecl.module "IGNORE" >
> > <![%xhtml-prefw-redecl.module;[
> > %xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
> > <!-- end of xhtml-prefw-redecl.module -->]]>
> >
> > While I can see the logic (and virtue) in both interpretations,  I would
like to know which one is correct.
>
> See: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/xml_bugs/#bug2
>
> Regards,
> --
> Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
> W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 13:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:17:42 GMT