lee said:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" />
thanks lee. but this has me claiming the file is a form of xhtml, and not just the straightforward-plain-and-ordinary .html that it is. (i believe it would run in a 1997 browser.) what would the lines look like that would support this type of just-the-basics .html file? of course, i don't need anything more than the [html] at the top to get it to actually _work_ in a browser -- any browser -- and work just fine. so this is just an exercise in getting the file _validated_, so that it can pass the "requirement" of getting it posted.
Note that if your file truly _is_ 100% ASCII you could use "utf-8" or "iso-8859-1", or even "windows-1252" in place of "us-ascii", because for values less than 128 all three of these encoding methods are identical.
right. but i would prefer to make the claim as minimal as possible -- to reflect the actuality of the file -- not as maximal as possible... -bowerbird p.s. as for "tidy", thanks for all your open-source work on it...