Quote:
Originally Posted by frabjous
Sigh. The original poster comes here with a problem. I help to solve that problem, and you have to come and sound all holier-than-thou-esque.
|
Didn't mean to sound all "holier-than-thou-esque". I have a lot of respect for you frabjous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frabjous
(Saying "nothing to do" with it, however, is certainly misleading. They are two children of common ancestors so-to-speak. Still I apologize if anyone was misled.)
|
But it doesn't have anything to do with it, even though they are the children of common ancestors.
XML by itself is used for many,
many things other than XHTML and was created primarily for those "other" things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frabjous
As for the tag, however, according to the W3C xhtml spec, this tag is not mandatory. |
You're right, the XML spec uses the RFC 2119 term "SHOULD", not "MUST".
My bad, I was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frabjous
But even if some other spec somewhere says it's mandatory, but given what this thread is about, and the problem the original poster was having, what could possibly be more to the point than the fact this is unusual? It's obvious that in this case that it is this tag that was preventing the file from being correctly read and converted by Word, and, apparently, by OpenOffice.
Pointing out that it's "mandatory" is in fact, given what the OP asked, what is besides the point. What is to the point is that removing it solves the problem.
|
I didn't mean that as a reply to the OP, it's just that seeing someone say that having the XML declaration in an XHTML document is "weird" rubbed me the wrong way. It
really should be there, and I've been burned many, many times by documents that would have been far better off having it.
And OO and Word not being able to handle it... that's just damn stupid on their part. And pretty surprising for OO.