- From: Chris Nappin <CNappin@inri.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 10:11:24 +0100
- To: "Philip J. Bailey" <pjb@philipbailey.u-net.com>
- CC: "w3c (list)" <www-validator@w3.org>
"Philip J. Bailey" wrote: > ...I could not aggree more, Luckilly I can, it seams have my cake and eat it. > One reply indicated that I can save my own modified DTD to my web site and > declare that on line one of the document. kind of defeats the object, but > it now should mean that seamless frames and EMBED will validate... I am very disappointed if that does work. I thought that the entire point of the W3C HTML validator is to independently verify that you have stuck to the W3C standards. What are you proving by validating against a non-standard DTD ? That you have stuck to SGML ? If you put the "Valid HTML 4" sticker on a page that isn't valid HTML 4, then you are making that sticker meaningless... > ...Mind you, the validation that I rely on mostly, is checking it on more than > one browser. MSIE 5, NS 4.5, Opera 3, Sun's Hot Java, and for non frames > browsers Mosaic. If it displays OK thats what matters... And what about Lynx, Web TV, Macs, Unix machines, Palm tops, WinCE machines etc... ? Netscape and IE with JavaScript turned on and off, Java on and off, Style sheets turned on and off etc... ? There are many releases of IE 3 and IE 4, most of which render HTML slightly differently... How about high colour, low colour and monochrome devices ? A full test suite would have to cover several dozen programs/configurations over several dozen platforms. Many, many combinations - prohibitively expensive... Alternatively you can stick to the W3C standards on HTML, CSS, accessability etc. Then your pages will be usable on most programs/platforms, by many kinds of users, and will also be future proof to some degree. -- Chris Nappin, INRI UK Ltd. Tel: +44 (0)1703 760484 Fax: +44 (0)1703 760483 Web: www.inri.co.uk INRI is a subsidiary of Logicon Inc, a Northrop Grumman Company.
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 1999 06:01:39 UTC