how about
<?XML version="1.0" ?>
i've yet to understand why, but isn't that the way it needs to be?
Ingo Macherius wrote:
> > > <http://www.scripting.com/siteChanges.xml>
>
> > It is not valid XML, because of 3 things:
> More exact: It is neither well-formed nor valid XML ...
>
> > 1) the <?XML version="1.0"> PI is missing.
>
> Ouch. This is not well-formed at all.
> Use <?xml version="1.0"> as to the latest PR.
>
> ++im
>
--------------80E372691BD584311C3274F7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
how about
<?XML version="1.0" ?>
i've yet to understand why, but isn't that the way it needs to be?
Ingo Macherius wrote:
> > <http://www.scripting.com/siteChanges.xml>--------------80E372691BD584311C3274F7-- xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)> It is not valid XML, because of 3 things:
More exact: It is neither well-formed nor valid XML ...> 1) the <?XML version="1.0"> PI is missing.
Ouch. This is not well-formed at all.
Use <?xml version="1.0"> as to the latest PR.++im