Re: Conditional HTML Alternatives

Paul Prescod (papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:32:04 -0500


Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:32:04 -0500
Message-Id: <199603191632.LAA27122@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
To: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: Conditional HTML Alternatives
Cc: html-wg@w3.org, www-html@w3.org

At 10:07 AM 3/19/96 -0600, Scott E. Preece wrote:
>My validation model would be that the PROTECT element is ignored and the
>validator considers each of its sub-elements in its place.  That is, for
>the example, it considers whether TABLE and UL are both permitted in the
>given context.  Validity would still be checkable against the document's
>specified DTD, though the validator would have to be somewhat more
>complicated to handle the multiple paths and the validator's output
>would be somewhat more complicated, since it would have to indicate
>validity conditionalized by the browsing environment's support (that is,
>it might say that a document was valid on browsers that recognize TABLE,
>but not on browsers that don't).

What you are talking about is another validator on top of the SGML
validator. I have no  problem with working "on top of" SGML, but why not do
it in the DTD instead of in the document?

In other words, why require extra validation smarts at the user-validator
level instead of at the DTD-validator level? Presumably DTDs are validated
much less frequently than are documents.

 Paul Prescod