Re: xml-headers in included xml files

Egon Schmid wrote:

From: "Hojtsy Gabor" <goba@mail.digitel2002.hu>

is there any reason that we have only <?xml encoding="..."?> instead of <?xml version="1.0" encoding="..."?> as first line in files included by manual.xml?

Yes. Encoding is needed, version is optional :) http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-TextDecl

We don´t need encodings in every file.

It worked for many years without that encoding in EVERY file.

I´m sure it is only needed in manual.xml or some files included.

this is true for jade / OpenJade but some XSLT processors might be more picky about standard conformance

Version strings are IMHO also nonsense.

i want to convert the function reference files to docbook 4 i want to use XSLT to do so as this requires converting the current <funcsynopsis> structure to <methodsynopsis> which i definetly won't do by hand its easier to do this by transforming single files then by working on the complete manual so i need complete valid <?xml headers in every file under a function directory (sablotron won't accept input files without version attribute) so as i have to add version attributes for my private use anyway, why shouldn't i publish the modified files? please do not draw conclusions from a simple sample (jade) if you can't prove your assumptions by quoting a standard