- From: Scott L. Holmes <scottlholmes@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Osmo Saarikumpu <osmo@kotikone.fi>
- Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
--- Osmo Saarikumpu <osmo@kotikone.fi> wrote: > Scott L. Holmes wrote: > > > I like Basic 1.0 because it eliminates > > presentational elements but I still need > > scripting so my document doesn't quite > validate > > in my xml editor. > > > > Any tips would be greatly appreciated. > > I'd do it the simple way: use any DTD that > suits without modification > and don't use them nasty presentational > elements. Voila! I think I will do as you suggest. It's just that I'd been looking for a good reason to use Basic 1.0 but it's perhaps better to wait to see what comes out of the Compound Document Formats Group or similar. I did attempt what I suggested and it sort of worked. So I might try again. I was hoping there was a write up somewhere on how to eXtend our loverly Xhtml language! - The modularization document is a bit beyond me, I'm afraid - but perhaps I'll look that over some more. If anyone has any idea on this - or even where I could find more info on the flat versions of the DTD's I'd really appreciate it. Scott
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 20:20:20 UTC