W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2000

Re: Validator errors

From: Vidiot <brown@mrvideo.vidiot.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:47:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200001310046.SAA21535@mrvideo.vidiot.com>
To: kynn@idyllmtn.com (Kynn Bartlett)
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Kynn responded:

>At 05:37 PM 1/29/2000 , Vidiot wrote:
>>URL: www.vidiot.com/forumdispay.html
>>1) Validator does not like mixed-case tags, i.e., <HEAD> </head>
>>    It errors and says that there is an ending </head> without a start.
>>    That is obviously false.  Tags are not case sensitive and neither
>>    should the validator be case sensitive.
>
>Hi, this isn't strictly speaking true for all versions of HTML.

Since when?  I've never run across a browser that does care about case and
the HTML4.01 document, page 29, second paragraph, says that elements are
case insensitive.

>XHTML requires tags to not be mixed case.

Why the hell not?  Excuse me for saying so, but I think it is stupid to
force case on elements.  A lot of people, me included, hand write HTML code.
I personally prefer to have all elements in caps, including tags and
attributes.  But, many do not.  I've seen lots of mixed case HTML documents.
To force same-case tags is stupid and unenforceable.

I hereby plead that case-insensitivity be put into XHTML.

>>2) Error: end tag for "BASE" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified.
>>    Excuse me, but </BASE> is FORBIDDEN.  And where did I end up
>>    specifying "OMITTAG NO"?  I certainly didn't select any options
>>    to do that.
>
>This is also something that's in XHTML -- all tags in XHTML need to
>be closed, i.e. either <BASE HREF="whatever" /> or <BASE></BASE>.

Huh?  Why?  Obviously BASE has worked for years in HTML without a closing
tag.  Why should it now be required?  The word dumb comes to mind again.
According to your statement, even <BR> would require a </BR>, which is really
stupid.

Are you guys doing this non-mixed-case and adding closing tags thing just to
be difficult?  I don't see the logic in doing this.

>2.  Gerald needs to rethink the utility of having the default be
>     XHTML 1.0.  While I can see -why- he'd choose this -- the W3C
>     has an interest in promoting the use of XHTML instead of HTML,
>     and this is one way of raising awareness -- I feel that it's
>     just going to result in confusing and frustration for the
>     default DTD to be anything other than HTML 4.01.

Based upon the above few items that are being forced on the user, XHTML is not
going to be a document choice for me any time soon.  IMHO, you are being too
heavy handed with the XHTML structure.

MB
-- 
e-mail: vidiot@vidiot.com
    Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys?  Lisa: They must have
    programmed it to eliminate the competition.  Bart: You mean like
    Microsoft?  Lisa: Exactly.  [The Simpsons - 12/18/99]
Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/  (Your link to Star Trek and UPN)
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2000 19:50:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:53 GMT