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

Re: sugggestion: HTML 4.01 as default

From: <pdf@bizfon.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:36:14 -0400
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256970.0060B431.00@Enterprise>


Thanks Terje!
Well, it's good to know that it's at least in the works.  :)

Is it currently possible to validate a page using multiple DTD's?  For example,
suppose I want to validate a document using the HTML 4 DTD, along with an IE
DTD.  I've never tried using more than one DTD in the DOCTYPE definition, only
because I could not find any information about including multiple DTD's.  This
is the only page I found, and it's not exactly explained on this page:

http://validator.w3.org/sgml-lib/catalog

The reason I ask is because if the stuff you were working on is partially
working except for commenting out the DOCTYPE already in the document, then
perhaps it could be partially implemented and you can let the users select DTD's
to use in addition to the one in the document.  Then, once you get it to
correctly ignore the one in the document, you could add that option.  Just an
idea.

-Peter






Terje Bless <link@tss.no> on 10/06/2000 01:01:04 PM

To:   W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc:    (bcc: Peter Foti)

Subject:  Re: sugggestion: HTML 4.01 as default



On 06.10.00 at 11:11, pdf@bizfon.com wrote:

>Option 1: Use the DOCTYPE definition in the document.
>Option 2: Select which DTD to validate against, with an option to ignore
>          a DOCTYPE definition in the HTML document being validated.
>
>This would allow the user to validate the page using different DTD's,
>without having to modify the document and re-upload it again.

I've had that running for a while and then broken it more or less
irrepairably in the process of adding some new features. I'm in the process
of reimplementing it. It's the latter part of option #2 that is the
problem. It means you have to fully parse the document to identify any
existing DOCTYPE and comment it out. I'm not quite sure how to do that as
of yet. Perhaps I'll settle for "good enough" rather then shooting for
"provably correct". :-(


>I suggested something like this long ago, but I didn't really see any
>feedback on that idea.

That's probably because it's already on the TODO -- mine at least; I dunno
about Gerald's -- and Gerald has approved the strategy (remove defaults and
DOCTYPE sniffing in favour of a user override).


--
As a cat owner, I know this for a fact...
Nothing says "I love you" like a decapitated gopher on your front porch.
Received on Friday, 6 October 2000 13:36:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:54 GMT