Terje Bless wrote: [long snip] > >It's not just "complaining". It's claiming that a valid document is > >invalid. And this is apparently intentional. Hence, it does not even try > >to be a validator any more. > > That does not follow; neither from the argument nor from the observed > behaviour. With respect, it /does/ follow : this is the primary diagnostic which results from validating Jukka's page (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/) using http://validator.w3.org:8001/ This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional! which is clearly a fallacious and extremely misleading statement. Philip Taylor, RHBNCReceived on Friday, 29 August 2003 07:24:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:48:49 GMT