On 27.02.01 at 11:10, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Terje Bless wrote: > >>Slippery slope! Nice summation. :-) >IMO the slippery slope only starts when a document that would *fail* >validation to any appropriate W3C standard *passes* validation to >a custom DTD. > >Merely requiring some closing tags that W3C makes optional doesn't cause >you to cross that threshold. So I stand by my comment: the original >questioner can accomplish what he asked for without losing formal >validation. Yes. As a document author I see no problem with doing this. In fact I commonly encourage custom DTDs and tools that support them. _But_ this is a technique for document authors and not for Validators. Once the Validators make judgement calls about what DTD you /really/ meant, it's no longer a validator but rather a mere "lint". Bertilo's suggestion to move to XHTML is a better idea in this particular case.Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2001 06:35:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:48:41 GMT