Re: why TITLE, not TITLE?

James Aylett (
Fri, 9 May 1997 21:11:46 +0100 (BST)

Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 21:11:46 +0100 (BST)
From: James Aylett <>
To: Paul Prescod <>
cc: Chad Owen Yoshikawa <chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU>,
Subject: Re: why TITLE, not TITLE?
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>

On Fri, 9 May 1997, Paul Prescod wrote:

> I would encourage you to modify the DTD rather than the parser. Once
> you've hardcoded that error recovery crap there is no easy way to go
> back. Plus your users might be interested in the ability to test their
> pages out against multiple DTDs: "Does this conform to HTML 2.0? 3.2?
> Extended HTML?"

Having said that, you may need your parser to be somewhat error-allowing.
There are certain cases of broken HTML which simply cannot be represented
in a valid DTD (Stewart Brodie's example of broken comments, for
This could, however, be comfortably accomplished by having a preparser
which attempts to knock invalid HTML into whicever DTD your parser is
written for (or is using at the moment).

Just a thought,

   James Aylett -- Crystal Services ( Ftp and Web
            Clare College, Cambridge, CB2 1TL --