- From: Christian Smith <csmith@barebones.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:13:13 -0400
- To: Stout <mstout@xnet.com>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Saturday, July 15, 2000 at 9:39 PM, mstout@xnet.com (Stout) wrote: > Thanks for the note. > > The book -- XML by Example says: > > "By convention, HTML elements in XML are always uppercase. " > "By convention XML elements are frequently written in lowercase." I don't generally suggest this but you might want to put this book to a better use. My best suggestions would be to use it as liner for a bird cage or perhaps to start fires if you have a wood stove or a fire place. If you want to learn about XML, try <http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm> If you want to learn about XHTML, try <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/> Some specific comments on the above quotes > "By convention, HTML elements in XML are always uppercase. " This is gibberish. There is no such thing as "HTML elements in XML". Some authors use uppercase for their HTML by convention. Others use lowercase. HTML by design is non-case sensitive. > "By convention XML elements are frequently written in lowercase." This is just plain wrong. XML is case sensitive. An element is either uppercase or it is lowercase. It can't be both. <FOO> != <foo>. > If XHTML validation is going to use lowercase for HTML elements, I can > deal with that. But I'd wish the "convention" was as strict as XML. XHTML is precisely as strict as XML since XHTML is an XML based language. So, lets recap. HTML is not case sensitive. XML is case sensitive. XHTML is an XML based language. There is a reason why the W3C validator reports errors with "<TR></TR>". -- Christian Smith | csmith@barebones.com | http://web.barebones.com He who dies with the most friends... Is still dead!
Received on Saturday, 15 July 2000 23:12:47 UTC