- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:29:35 -0500
- To: "Scott L. Holmes" <scottlholmes@yahoo.com>
- CC: Osmo Saarikumpu <osmo@kotikone.fi>, www-html-editor@w3.org
The flat version of the DTD is included in the document sort of as a reference - it is not really intended for use, particularly like this. Take a look at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/xhtml-m12n-tutorial/ - it might be of some help. Scott L. Holmes wrote: >--- 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 > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 21:29:54 UTC