W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 1999

Re: Comments on draft-connolly-text-html-00.txt

From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:45:32 -0400
Message-ID: <37EF830C.FEB43E34@htmlhelp.com>
To: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
CC: www-html@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote:
> 
> I saw that Dan Connolly and Larry Masinter published an Internet Draft
> for the long overdue update of the definition of "text/html." Good
> work!
> 
>     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-connolly-text-html-00.txt
[snip]
> 4) Section 2 says that doctype can be used to distinguish the
> versions. It should probably also say something about the absence of a
> doctype, which is allowed at least in HTML 2.0.

This is often asserted, but I don't believe that it's true.  From
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_3.html#SEC3.3>:

+To identify information as an HTML document conforming to this
+specification, each document must start with one of the following
+document type declarations.

Note the use of "must".

> Maybe it should say
> that the absence of a doctype means version 4.01 (or the "latest
> version" in case there are any after 4.01). Or maybe that the absence
> of a doctype means that all bets are off...

According to my reading of HTML 2.0, 3.2, and 4.0, conforming documents
must have a doctype.  I don't think a draft on the text/html media type
should attempt to change this.

-- 
Liam Quinn
A Real Validator for Windows, http://arealvalidator.com
Web Design Group, http://www.htmlhelp.com
Received on Monday, 27 September 1999 10:44:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:39 GMT