- From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
- Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 07:42:03 +0200
- To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
On 08.10.99 at 23:47, Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com> wrote:
>>it won't label the document as valid unless it contains a DOCTYPE. This
>>is because the DOCTYPE isn't a requirement of the DTD,
>
>Well, sorry, but the above statements are contradictory.
Oops! Sorry about that.
The intent was that:
1. A DOCTYPE is not required by the DTD.
a. I don't think it is even possible to express such a requirement
in a DTD.
b. It may be required in SGML, but I haven't checked.
2. A DOCTYPE _is_ required to know which DTD to validate against.
3. It does not matter where the DOCTYPE is given.
a. It is preferred if it is in the HTML file.
I. Because it is easier.
II. This is not a requirement.
b. It's possible to make it a parameter for the CGI.
I. Indeed, this will be possible in some future version of the
Validator.
II. It will even be possible to override any DOCTYPE in the
HTML file from the FORM interface.
c. You can guess based on the elements used
I. But then you can't say it's valid because you don't know
whether your guess is right or wrong.
4. Default assumptions about the level of HTML in use have been
deprecated in the HTML 4.0 Reccomendation.
Does that explain it better?
My writing skills aren't exactly exemplary to begin with and when you add
the fact that English isn't my native language, the resulting mess -- of
self-contradictory statements, grammatical and semantical errors, and
general readability problems -- is quite horrific to watch. :-(
Received on Saturday, 9 October 1999 01:59:39 UTC