W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > February 2001

Re: Table Validation

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:36:39 +0000 (GMT)
To: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102271225030.376-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Terje Bless wrote:

> On 27.02.01 at 11:10, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote:
> > [ custom DTD ]
> 
> Yes. As a document author I see no problem with doing this. In fact I
> commonly encourage custom DTDs and tools that support them.

Metoo.

>	 _But_ this is a
> technique for document authors and not for Validators.

Agreed.  But validators are a tool for authors.  Someone asked how to
do something with the tool.  You explained why the tool itself won't
do what he wants unbidden.  I explained how he *can* use the tool to
accomplish what he wants.  No disagreement.

>	 Once the Validators
> make judgement calls about what DTD you /really/ meant, it's no longer a
> validator but rather a mere "lint".

Ah, but all the validators do exactly that, every time they encounter
a document lacking a DOCTYPE declaration.  Last time I checked, the
correct behaviour here is to validate against HTML 2.0, but none of
them do that.  Page Valet's approach is to *default* to exactly the
same as the W3C validator, but offer additional options to users.

>	 Bertilo's suggestion to move to XHTML
> is a better idea in this particular case.

[ a suggestion also mentioned in my first post in this thread ]

That might depend on other factors, such as software being used to
prepare/publish a site.

-- 
Nick Kew

Is your site a lawsuit waiting to happen?
See <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/intranet/> before it's too late.
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2001 07:37:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:55 GMT