Subject: Re: [xsl] XHTML [WAS: Grouping into a table (for vertical alignment)] From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 10:29:48 +0100 |
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 ________________________________________________________________________
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XHTML [WAS: Grouping into, Daniel Joshua | Thread | RE: [xsl] XHTML [WAS: Grouping into, Daniel Joshua |
Re: [xsl] XHTML [WAS: Grouping into, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] XHTML rendering: xmlns At, David Carlisle |
Month |