Re: TAG closing! I got proof now! :)

Paul Prescod (papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Fri, 04 Oct 1996 11:29:48 -0400


Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961004152948.0087ccb4@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 11:29:48 -0400
To: WWW HTML List <www-html@w3.org>
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: TAG closing!  I got proof now! :)

At 10:08 AM 10/4/96 +0100, James Aylett wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Carl Morris wrote:
>
>> BUT read the spec, not the DTD!  Yuo will read that it implies that at
>> least browsers should probably expect the end tag to be missing ...
>> maybe in lue of the 3.0 DTD?
>
>Ooh, I've gone all cautious now. Am I right in saying that the spec _is_
>the DTD (being a markup language and all)? If not, then the spec has got
>to be infinitely big, surely, to deal with browser types that don't yet
>exist yet (rendering into a hologram, for instance).

The DTD is part of the spec. DTDs cannot express every constraint that one
might want to express (for instance a DTD can't check if an attribute
conforms to the URI spec) so the written specification adds information to it.

I don't know what one would do if they were in conflict. Generally speaking,
there isn't any algorithm to figure out which part of a single specification
is "more authoritative" than another.

 Paul Prescod