I think it's more a question for the TAG, but I think it's interesting to have the question here too. http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list There was a problem in the past with the HTML 4 doctype. Read the thread here. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2000JanMar/0133.html HTML 4.0 [1] has been updated in HTML 4.01 [2] and the initial dtd [3] given for HTML 4.0 has been used to validate against HTML 4.01 The question: - Do you think that even a DTD was bogus a new version of a REC should give a new URI for a dtd? - It has secondary implementation issues. For example, the software BBEdit to solve the issue of DOCTYPE among different version of HTML 4 has been implemented with dated URIs. The problem with this solution is that the CSS-validator does not want to validate against dated URIs for XHTML 1.0. who is right? who is wrong? both? Ref: [1] HTML 4.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/strict.dtd [2] HTML 4.01 http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/strict.dtd [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd -- Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager http://www.w3.org/QA/ --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 04:28:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:33:48 GMT