RE: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue? [was: Draft TAG Finding:...]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Didier PH Martin wrote:
> I tried some of the links you mentioned and tried to validate the
> documents. MSN seems to be really an XML document but at 20:16 eastern
> time, Sunday evening, the IBM site is not, the gnome site is not. I
> stopped after having tested these three sites where 2 out of 3 were not
> valid XML document but more valid HTML documents. Maybe I wasn't lucky
> :-)

Absolutely -- because UAs treat XHTML documents sent as text/html not as
XML but as tag soup, authors often don't notice that their documents are
invalid. (This is why I think it was a bad idea to say that XHTML
documents may be sent text/html.)

However, the document are definitely intended to be XHTML: The DOCTYPEs,
the "xmlns" attributes, the "/>" bits at the end of empty elements -- all
of these are clear signs.

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 18 August 2002 20:33:14 UTC