DOCTYPE
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
RESULTAAT
Valid variants There are a few valid variants of this example that should also be tested: With or without ?xml prolog. XHTML 1.1 explicitly states that the XML declaration is not required in all XML documents and goes on to state that XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in all their documents. A strong encouragement is however, not a requirement and therefore the ?xml prolog is optional in XHTML 1.1 documents. File extension ".html" or ".xml". For our purposes we will assume that typical web servers are configured to serve .html or .htm files as "text/html", and to serve .xml files as "text/xml". XHTML 1.1 says nothing about the proper file extension or mimetype for XHTML 1.1 documents, so we look at XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.0 Appendix C, section 11, says that XHTML documents may be labeled as text/html or text/xml or application/xml. It is left quite open ended as to which of those the author should choose. Hence it makes sense to at least test examples served as "text/html" (.html) and "text/xml" (.xml). Valid variants There are a few valid variants of this example that should also be tested: With or without ?xml prolog. XHTML 1.1 explicitly states that the XML declaration is not required in all XML documents and goes on to state that XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in all their documents. A strong encouragement is however, not a requirement and therefore the ?xml prolog is optional in XHTML 1.1 documents. File extension ".html" or ".xml". For our purposes we will assume that typical web servers are configured to serve .html or .htm files as "text/html", and to serve .xml files as "text/xml". XHTML 1.1 says nothing about the proper file extension or mimetype for XHTML 1.1 documents, so we look at XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.0 Appendix C, section 11, says that XHTML documents may be labeled as text/html or text/xml or application/xml. It is left quite open ended as to which of those the author should choose. Hence it makes sense to at least test examples served as "text/html" (.html) and "text/xml" (.xml). Valid variants There are a few valid variants of this example that should also be tested: With or without ?xml prolog. XHTML 1.1 explicitly states that the XML declaration is not required in all XML documents and goes on to state that XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in all their documents. A strong encouragement is however, not a requirement and therefore the ?xml prolog is optional in XHTML 1.1 documents. File extension ".html" or ".xml". For our purposes we will assume that typical web servers are configured to serve .html or .htm files as "text/html", and to serve .xml files as "text/xml". XHTML 1.1 says nothing about the proper file extension or mimetype for XHTML 1.1 documents, so we look at XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.0 Appendix C, section 11, says that XHTML documents may be labeled as text/html or text/xml or application/xml. It is left quite open ended as to which of those the author should choose. Hence it makes sense to at least test examples served as "text/html" (.html) and "text/xml" (.xml).