- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:13:00 +0100
On 6/22/05, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > Jim Ley wrote: > > On 6/21/05, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >>Matthew Raymond wrote: > >> Now that I think about it, wouldn't the following be valid also?... > >> > >>| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > >>| <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" > >>| "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > > > >>| <X3D xmlns="http://www.web3d.org/specifications/x3d-3.0.xsd" > > > > Of course not, there is no X3D element in the above dtd. > > Oh, I see. This was a suggestion in the XHTML 1.0 spec of how > namespaces MIGHT be used. I guess it's out of date. It is of course Well-Formed, but it's not valid, you could indeed mix an XHTML 1.0 or 1.1 document with other elements and use your own dtd to make it valid (if you felt a need to). This wouldn't work with XHTML 2.0 as is currently drafted though as XHTML 2.0 must use a particular doctype, I imagine that will change though. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 02:13:00 UTC