- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 00:10:47 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
well, somehow they may both be correct;
the date is when version 1.0 was finalized, so perhaps they can be used
interchangeably for version 1.0 documents,
just as
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/
points to the same as
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/
; let's see... ;)
Pankaj Kamthan wrote:
> Tobias,
>
> "Which one of the following is correct?
> (spec)
> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 20010904//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-
> 20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">
>
> (or)
> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-
> 20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">
>
> (or)
> ..."
>
> This is a good one (considering the announcement of the
> recommendation is still hot from the oven).
--
Tobias Reif
http://www.pinkjuice.com/myDigitalProfile.xhtml
go_to('www.ruby-lang.org').get(ruby).play.create.have_fun
http://www.pinkjuice.com/ruby/
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2001 18:12:06 UTC