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

Re: What is "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN" ?

From: Frederic Schutz <schutz@mathgen.ch>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:16:30 +1100
To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <ot2c3v053je8khmb8mp91hpkalhv9gkvmd@4ax.com>

Le 25 Jan 2003 13:37:22 +0200, tu as ecrit :

>>    -- generalized HTML reference, meaning 'latest HTML recommendation' --
>>    --   aka, what is published at http://www.w3.org/TR/html --
>> PUBLIC   "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN"
>> xml/1.0/xhtml1-strict.dtd
>> xml/1.0/xhtml1.dcl
>> xml/1.0/xhtml1-strict.dtd
>> xml/1.0/xhtml1.dcl
>> Is there anything wrong using these ids, or are they just "non-official" ?
>Well, by putting "W3C" in the id's, they're basically saying that
>they're from W3C, which AFAICT is not true.  "-//Debian//DTD HTML//EN"
>would be ok.

I agree with the first part, but since they are provided for compatibility
only, it would be useless to use "-//Debian//DTD HTML//EN".

>Personally, I don't see what good would using such a generic "latest
>HTML recommendation" public identifier be, IMHO the following blurb at
>the top of the documents is roughly equivalent to it.

I agree. Given that these identifiers have already been in Debian for a
while and that a Google search mentioned a few people that were discussing
about it, I did the following while updating the Debian package that
contains the XHTML DTDs: I kept all these mappings, along with a warning
saying that they are unofficial, provided only to ensure compatibility and
that they should not be used for new documents, along with a link to the
W3C of valid mappings.

>Oh, and asking this on www-html@ would probably be a good idea.

Good idea, I'll do that just to make sure that this interpretation is ok !

Thanks Ville !

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 00:16:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:36 UTC