W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 1999

Re: doctype placement

From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:11:31 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
At 09:22 PM 26/07/99 -0400, Liam Quinn wrote:
>At 08:43 PM 26/07/99 -0400, Liam Quinn wrote:
>>At 08:27 PM 26/07/99 -0400, Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote:
>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Liam Quinn wrote:
>>>> This has the unfortunate side effect of allowing unrecognized DOCTYPEs to
>>>> go by without an error message while SP assumes HTML4.dtd.
>>>Sorry, I don't fully understand this.  Can you give some examples to
>>>illustrate this?
>>When you use
>>DOCTYPE html HTML4.dtd
>>in your catalog and try to validate a document with an unrecognized DOCTYPE
>>such as
>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//w3c//dtd html 3.2 final//EN">
>>SP will assume HTML4.dtd without issuing an error message.  (At least this
>>is how my locally hacked SP behaves.  I don't think it's from anything I
>Sorry, I think I'm wrong.  I've checked with a non-hacked SP 1.3 and it
>does emit an error message.  Please ignore my babbling.

That's probably good advice, but from further testing I've found that SP
1.3 will issue an error message for

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//foo//dtd foo 99.0//en">

but not for


when a DOCTYPE is used in the catalog.  The trigger of the error message in
the first case is "dtd", which isn't a valid public text class.  The second
case has a valid public text class and isn't flagged by SP unless there is
no DOCTYPE in the catalog.  In the second case, SP uses whatever DOCTYPE is
specified in the catalog.

Sorry for my confusion.

Liam Quinn
Received on Monday, 26 July 1999 23:11:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:25 UTC