Next message: Marie Taylor-Harper: "RE: HTML 4.0 Validation"
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:36:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
To: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102271225030.376-100000@fenris.webthing.com>
Subject: Re: Table Validation
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.