On 5/8/07, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com> wrote:
Though I got the impression here that they were inferring XHTML from the use
of method="xml" and doctype-system="....", which is definitely a departure
from the spec.
It certainly does, which makes it a bit tricky to serve valid XHTML
Strict to browsers who don't understand XHTML through
application/xml+xhtml as it wraps the <script> elements with CDATA but
without the normal comment wrapper workarounds for stupid browsers
such as Internet Explorer. Hmm. It would be good if there was a way to
make the output="xml" work strict, though.
However, the OP mentioned that he was creating lots of XHTML files
that didn't support the <head> section (some internal or temporary
formats?). If that is the case, then you *can't* put in the XHTML
Strict doctype, because it ain't XHTML Strict and you can't expect
your tools to ignore the doctype if you present it. So, going back,
you're doing it wrong, mate. :)
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchymist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--