- 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