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

RE: Style tag not validated correctly for HTML 4.01

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:24:58 +0000 (GMT)
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20031030201428.E1015-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, validating in "fussy" mode will complain at your
> > basefont.  That's available in Page Valet, and in the beta of the
> > W3 validator.
>
> Or you could modify the DTD to make all start tags for elements obligatory
> and would thereby get a more specific error message. (That's actually
> better than using a "validator" in a manner that turns it into something
> else than a validator.)

Why is it "better" to put in extra unproductive work, and use a
nonstandard DTD, when the object of the exercise is to conform with
a W3C DTD?

And how exactly is someone who is confused about whether <basefont>
can go in <head> going to hack their own DTD?  IMO it is my business
as a tool developer to help users, not to put superfluous learning
curves in their way.

Noone forces you to select fussy mode.  It just happens to address
problems some users have with validation.  I recommended it as an
option to someone who wanted an error message where he expected it.
As it happens I'm in good company: Charles Goldfarb recommends that
validating SGML parsers should offer stricter parse modes to users,
and James Clark both implicitly endorses this (by implementing it)
and offers his own recommendations.

-- 
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 19:23:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:10 GMT