Re: doctype placement

From: Liam Quinn (liam@htmlhelp.com)
Date: Mon, Jul 26 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990726212239.03630a60@mail.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:22:39 -0400
To: roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Subject: Re: doctype placement 

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 "-//FOO//DTD FOO 99.0//EN">
>
>or
>
><!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
>changed.)

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.

-- 
Liam Quinn