- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:28:24 +0900 (JST)
- To: frank.ellermann@t-online.de
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Frank Ellermann <frank.ellermann@t-online.de> 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>). If you declare a namespace like that, the 'base' element belongs to no namespace because of namespace defaulting. So even if a user agent is smart enough to understand namespaces, that 'base' element doesn't bear semantics of XHTML's 'base' element, so you won't be able to achieve your objective. > 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 ? Validity and well-formedness are two distinct things. Your document is well-formed but not valid. Please check the definition of "valid" [1] and "well-formed" [2] in the XML spec. As I said, since features you want to add all belong to the XHTML namespace, namespaces are not relevant in this case. A simple solution would be to just use XHTML 1.0 Transitional, or if you are using a DTD-aware authoring tool and you want to avoid other "transitional" features creeping into your documents, you might want to write a custom DTD for your internal use and publish your documents as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#dt-valid [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-terminology Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 23:28:32 UTC