Next message: Bertilo Wennergren: "RE: Minimized P valid XHTML?"
From: "Osmo Saarikumpu" <sendosmo@hotmail.com>
To: shane@aptest.com, derhoermi@gmx.net
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:14:00
Message-ID: <LAW2-F101Hy3SpwBGpE000031db@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Minimized P valid XHTML?
>From: "Shane P. McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
>Actually, it is more than that. The issue is that the restriction in
>XHTML is in the appendix about backwards compatibility. It has nothing
>to do with XHTML 1 per se. It has to do with historical browsers. Same
>thing with the <br /> back (where we put a space in so that it still
>works).
Actually the quote was from sec. 4. Differences with HTML 4:
4.3 For non-empty elements, end tags are required
In SGML-based HTML 4 certain elements were permitted to omit the end tag;
with the elements that followed implying closure. This omission is not
permitted in XML-based XHTML. All elements other than those declared in the
DTD as EMPTY must have an end tag.
So, this is not a backwards compatibility issue, at least as far as I can
tell?
Concerning this then, I have a question (I'm relying on your kindness):
Is the following document then perfectly valid, as the validator says, or is
it invalid, as it would seem to me (according to my understanding of the the
wording of the Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>Testing</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1 />Hello world!
<q />Hello again!
<p />Have a nice day!
</body>
</html>
Thank you very much in advance for your patience & advice!
Osmo Saarikumpu
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.