Re: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]

OK I think we are in agreement then. I am, personally, willing to
treat it as a known issue in the checker, which has little practical
impact. I am happy to leave the BP alone.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>
>
>  Going back to Dom's earlier advice not to test declared validity, I think the value here is to not so much to say:
>
>  "You say you're a Ham Sandwich, you're not, and neither are you valid XHTML Basic"
>
>  So much as
>
>  "You say you're valid XHTML, you are, but unfortunately you're not valid XHTML Basic."
>
>  Which I think is worthwhile, although it doesn't reach the minimalist level recommended by Dom.
>
>  If we are going to make this change then I suppose that needs to be reflected in mobileOK Basic, and we need to firm up on the idea of "Well Known" DTDs (and their locations) and make that normative, I think.
>
>  Either way, the conversation needs to be had on the BP List etc.
>
>  Jo