Re: Wicket, HTML or XHTML ?

[pierre . goiffon]

Erik van Oosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/09/2008 15:06:05:

> For Wicket the doctype is not needed, so do what you like. Just remember
> to keep it in XML syntax.

Reading this I wonder if I just have to produce well-formed html files (
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-well-formed), or taking care of the 
points listed in the XHTML 1.0 recommandation in chapter 4 (
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs) ?

I wanted to generate HTML instead of XHTML to get rid of the mandatory 
Appendix C (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines) rules.

> There is only one ceavat: you should always
> write  instead of ,

OK

Re: Wicket, HTML or XHTML ?

[Erik van Oosten]

For Wicket the doctype is not needed, so do what you like. Just remember
to keep it in XML syntax. There is only one ceavat: you should always
write  instead of ,
Wicket ignores the XML definition that specifies that these should be
treated as semantically equivalent.

Regards,
Erik.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
> As a Wicket beginner, I was wondering if there are any contra-indication 
> to generate some HTML 4.01 Strict instead of any XHTML 1.0 version 
> (transitionnal or strict) ? 
> I tried to simply add an HTML 4.01 strict doctype to my html files, and it 
> seems to work fine (thought in development mode I have in the source the 
> xmlns:wicket in the body tag and all of the Wicket XHTML tags - going to 
> deployement mode an they disappear)
> Is there anything I must take care of ? Wicket use a namespace server-side 
> so... ?
> Best regards,
> P. Goiffon
>   

--
Erik van Oosten
http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]