Re: sugggestion: HTML 4.01 as default

Christian Smith:

> > 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.

> If this is what is desired (and I'm not really sure this is more desirable
> than just reporting the absense of a DOCTYPE and saying "no futher parsing
> is possible without a doctype") than the thing to do might be this

> Either:

> 1) Check to see if there is a DOCTYPE. If there is, validate against this.

> 2) If there is no DOCTYPE, scan the document for XML hints. If there are
> hints that the file is an XML document use the latest XHTML standard to
> validate the document. If there are no XML hints then validate against the
> latest HTML standard.

Excellent idea, except for the last few words. XHTML _is_ the latest
HTML standard (recommendation). You meant:

  "If there are no XML hints then validate against HTML 4.01."
 
> Or:

> 1) Provide a method (via a popup) that allows the user to specify a
> doctype to validate the document against. 

Also a good idea.
 
> 2) There should also be an option (via a checkbox which defaults to on) to
> have a doctype in the document overide the selected value in the popup.

I'm not sure I understand this last one.
 
> As I said, I'm not convinced that either of these are better than just
> reporting a single error re the missing doctype and a note that no further
> parsing will be done.

I'm not completely sure either. But if there is going to be any supposing
of DOCTYPE, then it's valid to discuss which one it should be.

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