Re: <q> and commas

Sam Kuper wrote:

> Actually, the HTML 4.01 spec is slightly mealy-mouthed on this point. 
> See s.19.1 [1]:

[...]

> My reading of this, especially the last sentence I've quoted above, is 
> that while automated "validators" detect "a large set of errors that 
> make documents invalid", they cannot catch all such errors. Since 
> avoiding all such errors seems to be synonymous with conforming to the 
> HTML 4 specification, this appears to imply that the sample document you 
> presented is, indeed, invalid. 

OK, here I respectfully disagree.  It clashes with a "should not",
not with a "must not", and therefore if that is the only deviation
from the specification the document remains valid.  Were it to clash
with a "must not" that is enshrined in the prose but not captured in
the DTD, then I would accept its putative invalidity.

> Synonymously, it is not in conformance with the spec.

I'm not certain that I agree with "synonymously"; it
conflicts with the specification but remains valid, IMHO.

Philip TAYLOR