- From: Einar Westermann <einar.westermann@online.no>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:17:51 +0200
- To: www-validator@w3.org
In practice, I find it easier to do without the XML declaration, which will show in older browsers, anyway. I don't miss out on anything, validationwise, do I? Einar "Shane P. McCarron" wrote: > > JakieChan wrote: > > > > Under 3.1.1 of the XHTML recomendation, it says you > > are allowed (encouraged even) to include an XML > > declaration. The validator doesn't agree. > > I have successfully validated documents that use the xml declaration. > > > The same example shows the !DOCUMENT entity with a > > relative URI: > > > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 > > Strict//EN" "DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > > > > The validator doesn't like that either. > > > > It validates http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ so I guess > > this must be a bug when using the upload file service? > > the xhtml1 draft does not use an xml declaration because of a horrible > bug in the Macintosh version 4.5 of Internet Explorer. Newer documents > the HTML working group has produced do use xml declarations, and they > work fine with the validator. > > As to the relative path problem, this is an issue that the working group > has struggled with. The SYSTEM identifier for an DOCTYPE should point > to a DTD. However, if the PUBLIC portion is a well known FPI, the > validator will use its local copy of the DTD rather than trying to > follow the SYSTEM identifier. So an uploaded or local document that > uses a SYSTEM identifier of "foo" but uses a W3C-defined FPI should > validate without error. At least, that is how it works for me.
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2000 17:16:32 UTC