- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:00:56 +0100
- To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
- cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >>>Second, yes, the page would validate es XHTML 1.0 Strict, but who >>>cares about that? It has a XHTML 1.0 Transitional document type >>>declaration and I selected "override" to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, so >>>what? > >Seems like you missed this one, it says "Strict" while it must say >"Transitional". Right. I found that one. It was a case of excessive optimization. It's fixed in CVS and will be iin the next beta. -- We've gotten to a point where a human-readable, human-editable text format forstructured data has become a complex nightmare where somebody can safely say "As many threads on xml-dev have shown, text-based processing of XML is hazardous at best" and be perfectly valid in saying it. -- Tom Bradford
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 16:01:03 UTC