|
Re: XHTML: <?xml?> shouldn't be required or a workaround needed for Micros: msg#00148java.enhydra.xmlc
Hi Petr, At 05:42 PM 9/30/2003 +0200, you wrote: Hi, Yeah, I guess I can agree with this for XHTML1.0 since XHTML1.0 documents don't require the XML header. Do XHTML1.1 documents require the XML header? I think they do, but I haven't verified this. Second, the Have you tried OutputOptions.setOmitXMLHeader(true)? This is certainly a candidate for automatic setting via OutputOptions.setEnableXHTMLCompatibility(true). I'd certainly like to hear opinions from others on this, but I'm not opposed to doing it. Please note that http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#strict says "An XML Yes, I hope it won't be too difficult as well, but I guess I'm less concerned about the mockups being required to contain the XML header when it is so easily stripped upon serialization using OutputOptions. If this is a feature that you need very soon, I suggest digging into the compiler and seeing if you can come up with a patch to change this behavior for XHTML1.0 documents. I may get to this, but it won't be a priority for me since OutputOptions can already take care of this at runtime with zero changes to XMLC. Jake Thanks
|
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | XHTML: <?xml?> shouldn't be required or a workaround needed for Microsoft stupidity, Petr Stehlik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XHTML: <?xml?> shouldn't be required or a workaround needed for Microsoft stupidity, Petr Stehlik |
| Previous by Thread: | XHTML: <?xml?> shouldn't be required or a workaround needed for Microsoft stupidity, Petr Stehlik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XHTML: <?xml?> shouldn't be required or a workaround needed for Microsoft stupidity, Petr Stehlik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |