Re: validator reject minimal HTML 3.2 document

Yucca wrote:

> Actually what I meant is that I think it's an oddity
> in the SGML standard, not a bug anywhere.

Ugh, thanks for the correction.

> Anyway, I think the validator is innocent until proven
> guilty

"Guilty" is what I thought.  It's hard to find new bugs
in the validator these days.

 Frank