Re: missing DOCTYPE

From: Claus Färber (list-w3c-html-validator@faerber.muc.de)
Date: Fri, Mar 03 2000

Next message: Bjoern Hoehrmann: "Re: HTML Validators"
Previous message: Bruce Weese: "HTML Validators"
In reply to: Anton Ertl: "missing DOCTYPE"
Next in thread: Kynn Bartlett: "Re: missing DOCTYPE"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Date: 03 Mar 2000 21:06:00 +0100
From: list-w3c-html-validator@faerber.muc.de (Claus Färber)
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <7$87V5YZcDB@faerber.muc.de>
Subject: Re: missing DOCTYPE

Anton Ertl <anton@a0.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb/wrote:
> Now, in HTML 2.0 the DOCTYPE is optional, according to RFC1866:
>|   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
...
>|      NOTE - If the body of a `text/html' message entity does not begin
>|      with a document type declaration, an HTML user agent should infer
>|      the above document type declaration.

Read: It something is labelled as `text/html' but does not have a  
correct DTD identifying it as HTML, the user agent should still treat it  
as HTML.

Remember that back then when RFC 1866 was written, HTML 2.0 was the only  
HTML standard.

Today, it would probably be better to assume HTML 4.01 Transitional.

-- 
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.faerber.muc.de>
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E  25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC

Next message: Bjoern Hoehrmann: "Re: HTML Validators"
Previous message: Bruce Weese: "HTML Validators"
In reply to: Anton Ertl: "missing DOCTYPE"
Next in thread: Kynn Bartlett: "Re: missing DOCTYPE"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]