Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> I looked at the reference and disagree strongly. It is true that xhtml
>> transitional allows most of the quirks of html, but xhtml strict does
>> not.
>
>
> Yes, that's why I didn't make a proposal to revert back to HTML-4.01. I
> agree with the author on one point though: We're currently serving
> xhtml-1.1 pages with the text/html mime type. That's not permitted by
> the standard. I believe it's easy enough to change the DTD declaration
> to 1.0, and our pages will still validate.
>From the current book:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
Looks like 1.0 to me.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
