W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > December 2006

Re: New scheme and Validation exponentiation

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:13:20 +0000
To: David Bean <beand@earthlink.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20061227221320.GE21344@us-lot.org>

On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 09:44:28PM +0000, David Bean wrote:
> Too much techo-geek speak (e.g., DTD, whatever the hell that is) 

A machine readable description of the language.

Google is quite good at helping out when you run into technical terms
you don't recognise: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Adtd

Dismissing them as "techno-geek speek" isn't going to improve matters,
people are going to continue to talk about DTDs since its a lot easier
to type then "Text file thingy that describes what elements are
allowed where in that format that was most comment when HTML was
published".

> and  meaningless variations of Doctype (?)

There are three, current, variations of HTML, and they aren't
meaningless.

Strict - the modern one

Transitional - Strict with the legacy junk left in (for transitioning
to HTML 4)

Frameset - for framesets.
 
> As to being specific -- you all have turned HTML into a monster that is 
> uncontrollable except by specially trained handlers.

HTML is not that complex a beast ... and it hasn't changed since 1999
(when the stripping out of the legacy junk and publication of the
Strict variant _simplified_ it), so I don't know why you're so angry
about it now.

... and ranting vaguely at people involved in the Markup Validator
instead of addressing specific concerns to those involved in the
language design isn't a very effect means of resolving any issues you
have.

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Wednesday, 27 December 2006 22:13:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:23 GMT