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

Re: Validator errors

From: Bless Terje <link@rito.no>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:17:07 +0100
Message-ID: <22FD5BD2DBC5D211BE0D0008C7A4E87FD9B40B@odin4.rito.no>
To: "'Vidiot'" <brown@mrvideo.vidiot.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
>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.

Yes, but lately, the Validator has been assuming that documents without a
DOCTYPE statement are XHTML 1.0 and not HTML 4.01. This is what you get for
not specifying a DOCTYPE. A practice that has been required since, what,
HTML 2.0? 3.2? Quite some time anyway. There was a reason for it, and this,
among other things, was it.


>>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.

Well, I happen to agree with you about Case Sensitivity, but, unfortunately,
for XML Applications (such as XHTML 1.0) that is the way it is. If I'd had
any say in the matter I would probably have fought this desition (as I've
seen no sane argment in favour of it), but this is the way it is at the
moment and we'll all have to live with it. Given the price tag for admission
into the W3C ($5K for individuals!) I suspect we'll have to deal with this
permanently.

However, we do not have to use XHTML. Nothing is stopping you from
continuing to use HTML 4.01; just make sure you include a DOCTYPE that says
so, so parsers (that is, validators and browsers etc.) can know what it is
they've been asked to parse.


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

Wrong forum. You need to take it up with the HTML in XML working group. :-(


>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.

Consider this: what logic do you apply to decide which elements require a
closing tag and which do not? Isn't more logical to require all of them to?
Kepp in mind that this isn't HTML; this XHTML which is an application of XML
rather then SGML.



>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.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? :-)

(
    And the relevant working groups would do well to take that
    fact into consideration for the future! :-(
)


>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.


Well, XHTML and XML _do_ have some things going for them. I would suggest
you look into them. However, they are not the be-all and end-all of document
standards. They have some advantages for certain tasks as other approaches
have for others.
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 02:17:50 GMT

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