- From: Jim Wise <jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu>
- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 05:31:20 -0500 (EST)
- To: Carl Morris <msftrncs@htcnet.com>
- cc: "Arnoud \"Galactus\" Engelfriet" <galactus@htmlhelp.com>, WWW HTML List <www-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Carl Morris wrote: > Welcome, you just saw my light as to why I won't use a validator... I > don't think I should have to live by the rules of some DTD... HTML was That's fine, as long as you realize that if you do not conform to the DTD, what you are writing is not standard HTML. > an extendable format, then it should be able to be extended without > requiring a new DTD to understand it... I wisH validators would go HTML is an application of SGML. Any valid extension of SGML can be defined in a DTD. If you do not use a DTD, you had better have some other method of a) ensuring that your description is non-ambiguous, and b) ensuring that it is valid SGML. A DTD is simply a very convenient way of covering these two points. > BTW I think that HTML 3.2 does define CLASS as a future extension... > they just are not ready to document it... If you want to validate your Nope. HTML 3.2 does not define any semantics for CLASS, or ID, and only minimal semantics for STYLE. If what you mean is that the W3C has stated an intention to include these features in a future version of the standard, you are absolutely correct. They are _not_ part of 3.2, however. -- Jim Wise System Administrator GSAPP, Columbia University jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu http://www.arch.columbia.edu/~jim * Finger for PGP public key *
Received on Saturday, 23 November 1996 05:31:47 UTC