- From: Frank Ellermann <frank.ellermann@t-online.de>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:56:40 +0100
- To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- CC: www-validator@w3.org
Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
> XHTML 1.0 Strict and Transitional share the same namespace
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml". Declaring a namespace doesn't
> help for your purpose.
Tnx, this explains why 2 of my 3 experiments failed. But the
3rd variant <dummy xmlns=""><base target="_top" /></dummy>
failed too, and this was essentially a copy of an example in
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#defaulting (5.2, last part:
<details xmlns=""> etc. </details> within an XHTML <table>).
> DTD-based validation and namespaces are not really
> compatible.
As long as the <details> resp. <dummy> section is well-formed,
i.e. the validator finds the corresponding end tag etc., why
not simply ignore this section ?
> If your REALLY have to do so, you might want to look at
> "Modularization of XHTML", at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/
Tnx for this pointer. No, not REALLY, but "all" (about 10 :-)
my "valid" documents were suddenly "invalid" after 14-09-2001,
and so I'm interested in bybassing new idiosyncrasies of future
validator versions... For one document I had to create my own
"W3C XHTML 1.0 FAIL" logo ;-)
Tnx for infos, bye, Frank
--
FAIL at http://frank.ellermann.bei.t-online.de/ibm850.htm#links
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 12:58:57 UTC