W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2009

Re: proper use of validation icons

From: Michael A. Peters <mpeters@mac.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:34:39 -0700
Message-id: <4A2C164F.20802@mac.com>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> I do use the specific DTD.
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd" [
>> <!ATTLIST input autocomplete (on | off) #IMPLIED>
>> ]>
>> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
> You are not using the XHTML 1.1 DTD. The DTD you use contains your 
> addition.

But because the W3C DTD is specified, browsers that render documents 
differently based on DTD know to use W3C xhtml 1.1.

I don't think that's much of an issue, css is suppose to be used for 
layout and is not tied to the xhtml version, but it certainly was an 
issue going from html 3.2 to html 4.

>> And no - HTML is not just as extensible.
>> To add an attribute you have to define a new DTD. You can't do the
>> above with html.
> I can, but browsers have traditionally refused to implement this part of 
> SGML, along with some other parts. HTML is defined as an SGML 
> application but implemented as tag soup.

I stand corrected.

> You don't need to define any attribute in order to use it. 

No but you do need to define it to validate it.
In the example I have, if I used

<input type="text" autocomplete="false" />


<input type="text" autocompete="off" />

the document would not validate and running it through a validator would 
make my error readily apparent to me. Thus defining the attribute and 
it's legal values is of value.

I'm also of the opinion that a browser (or any application that reads 
the file) should simply ignore any element / attribute that is not 
specifically defined in the document type. But that's just me.

> If you noticed a statement "Zumpy HXHGALX 4.2!" on a web page, would you 
> say "no damage done"? What if it were a link and clicking on it threw 
> some mystic report at you?

I would hit the back button and go about my business.
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 19:35:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:59 UTC