Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:5097 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 48238 invoked by uid 1010); 30 Oct 2003 09:23:24 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 48171 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2003 09:23:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bambi.bitflux.ch) (212.71.97.156) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2003 09:23:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (reh [127.0.0.1]) by bambi.bitflux.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72667F898 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:23:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from bambi.bitflux.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bambi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 09763-03 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:23:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from bitflux.ch (dclient217-162-237-29.hispeed.ch [217.162.237.29]) by bambi.bitflux.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66F57F501 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:23:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FA0D88B.60904@bitflux.ch> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:23:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p3 (Debian) at bitflux.ch X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) Subject: [Fwd: Re: [xml] HTML vs html in DOCTYPE] From: chregu@bitflux.ch (Christian Stocker) Here's the answer of the libxml2 guy chregu -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [xml] HTML vs html in DOCTYPE Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:21:58 -0500 From: Daniel Veillard Reply-To: veillard@redhat.com To: Christian Stocker CC: xml@gnome.org References: <3FA0CDEE.7090207@php.net> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:38:06AM +0100, Christian Stocker wrote: > Hi > > I just realized, that libxml2-2.6.0 outputs > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> > > with the html outpt, while 2.5.6 did: > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> > > (HTML vs html) > > What's the reason for changing this? The lowercase isn't invalid per se > but http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html and > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html recommend using the > Upper-Case version. > > Personally, I don't mind which version is used, just one of our test > failed due to this issue and I'm wondering now, why this was changed or > if it's even a bug ;) it was changed on-purpose. XHTML syntax is lowercase, basically this lowers the barrier when switching from SGML HTML to XHTML, and you have more chances of generating valid HTML in modern frameworks by using the lowercase version than when using the uppercase version. The world is slowly moving toward XHTML and this just reflects that tendancy :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ -- christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich phone +41 1 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71 http://www.bitflux.ch | chregu@bitflux.ch | gnupg-keyid 0x5CE1DECB