well, somehow they may both be correct; the date is when version 1.0 was finalized, so perhaps they can be used interchangeably for version 1.0 documents, just as http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/ points to the same as http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/ ; let's see... ;) Pankaj Kamthan wrote: > Tobias, > > "Which one of the following is correct? > (spec) > <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 20010904//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG- > 20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd"> > > (or) > <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG- > 20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd"> > > (or) > ..." > > This is a good one (considering the announcement of the > recommendation is still hot from the oven). -- Tobias Reif http://www.pinkjuice.com/myDigitalProfile.xhtml go_to('www.ruby-lang.org').get(ruby).play.create.have_fun http://www.pinkjuice.com/ruby/Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2001 18:12:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 September 2006 18:11:14 GMT