W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Validation issues

From: Clark Alexander <clark@clarkandlucina.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 23:12:49 -0400
To: "'Karl Dubost'" <karl@w3.org>, "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c302fc$fa47f5e0$9964a8c0@me>

Ookey, fine. I guess you guys would know, thanks. I think I'll just
adopt Karl's slogan and tell my students to "Be Strict To Be Cool." Or
be semantically correct to get an A. Hmm, has less of a ring to it. :)
Clark

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karl@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 22:30
To: Clark Alexander; 'Bjoern Hoehrmann'
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Subject: RE: Validation issues


At 22:15 -0400 2003-04-14, Clark Alexander wrote:
>Not that I know what #PCDATA children are, but thanks. What's the 
>reference for that? However, wouldn't that not conflict with the goals 
>of xhtml? That is to reformulate html so that it is consistent with 
>well-formed xml? That doesn't appear to be well formed. While I 
>understand that xhtml transitional was pretty tolerant, I was under the

>impression that was fairly limited to merely allowing deprecated 
>elements and attributes.

It's well formed. :)
It's not semantically necessary correct, but HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 
doesn't make any conformant requirements on the semantics... so :/

-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 23:17:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:08 GMT