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

Re: Validator errors

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:38:21 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000130183342.00c2eed0@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: Vidiot <brown@mrvideo.vidiot.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
At 04:46 PM 1/30/2000 , Vidiot wrote:
>Kynn responded:
> >Hi, this isn't strictly speaking true for all versions of HTML.
>Since when?

Since XHTML 1.0.

>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.

In HTML 4.01, yes.  In XHTML 1.0, no.

> >XHTML requires tags to not be mixed case.
>Why the hell not? 

Because that's what XHTML does.  (In XML, Case Matters.)

>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.

Trying to convince me is pointless -- you'll need to talk to the
HTML Working Group about this.

> >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? 

Because this is what's required in XML/XHTML.

>The word dumb comes to mind again.

No, you simply don't understand XHTML vs. HTML.

>According to your statement, even <BR> would require a </BR>, which is really
>stupid.

No, it's not stupid, and yes, <BR> requires either a closing </BR>
or at least that you write <BR /> which is XML/XHTML shorthand
for <BR></BR>.

>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.

Because it's XML compliant.  I can't answer the question any further
without, say, you learning about XML syntax.

However, I don't think you should have to learn XML/XHTML in order
to use the browser, and for that reason think Gerald made an error
in judgment.

> >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. 

Possibly not, no.

Which is why I consider it an error on Gerald's part to make it the
default for the validator.

HOWEVER, if you don't want to use whatever Gerald has chosen as a
default, _you must specify a doctype_.

If you had specified HTML 4.01 in your doctype in the first place,
we would not even be having this error.  Note that you CAN use
HTML 4.01 all you want; you simply have to tell someone (us, the
browser, whoever) that you're using it.

>IMHO, you are being too
>heavy handed with the XHTML structure.

Me?  I'm just the guy explaining this to you.  Please don't shoot
the messenger.
-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                   http://www.kynn.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet      http://www.idyllmtn.com/
Become AWARE of Web Accessibility!                  http://aware.hwg.org/
The Spring 2000 Virtual Dog Show is now open!     http://www.dogshow.com/
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2000 21:51:57 GMT

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