Re: sugggestion: HTML 4.01 as default

Christian Smith:

> > Good. Now, approximately when will it be a good idea to make this default 
> > to XHTML 1.0, the current HTML recommendation?

> Why is this even an issue? Both HTML 4.0.x and XHTML 1.0 REQUIRE the
> presence of a DOCTYPE. If the DOCTYPE is missing the file is not valid.
> Simple as that, no? 

Not quite. Even when the validator has noted this error, the lack of 
a DOCTYPE, it is still useful to parse the rest of the doc, noting
other errors, and in doing that it must suppose an _intended_ DOCTYPE.

It is more useful to be told that the doc is valid XHTML 1.0 apart
from the lack of a DOCTYPE declaration, than to just be told that
it is not valid without further details.

The validator is supposed to be a useful tool, no?

Now, should it suppose the most commonly used HTML DOCTYPE or should
it suppose the current recommendation, or something else? I believe 
HTML 4.01 is not the most commonly used one. That would probably 
be 3.2. It is not the current recommendation. So it must be "something
else" then.

#####################################################################
                         Bertilo Wennergren
                 <http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
                     <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
#####################################################################