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...