I believe you meant the above criteria. However, even if document does not
strictly comply to the above, it should be still consider XHTML (just not
strictly-conformant XHTML) as long as it is well-formed HTML.
As far as XPath/XSLT is concerned a namespace is just part of the name
and having the wrong namespace is just the same (and has the same
effects on template matching) as having the wrong local name.
_You_ may consider that
<x>
<foo/>
<bar/>
</x>
is XHTML, but just not "strictly conforming to the XHTML spec" but it's
not clear if this is really a useful distinction. If by "XHTML but not
strictly conforming" you just mean "well formed XML" why not call it
"well formed XML"?
David
--
The LaTeX Companion
http://www.awprofessional.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0201362996
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201362996/202-7257897-0619804
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________