- From: Barney Wol <Barney.Wol@noctua.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:27:36 +0000
- To: HTML Tidy List <html-tidy@w3.org>
- Cc: "J. David Bryan" <jdbryan@acm.org>
At 15:07 -0500 4/1/01, J. David Bryan wrote: >On 3 Jan 2001, at 0:10, Peter Vince wrote: > > Therefore, the correct Doctype declaration to use is the minimum that is > > actually required. > >I believe that is contraindicated by this statement in the "Status of this >Document" section of the HTML 4.01 Specification: > > "W3C recommends that authors produce HTML 4 documents instead of HTML > 3.2 documents." > >(Producing an "HTML 4 document" requires using an HTML 4 doctype.) > > -- Dave Hmmm, the way I would read that recommendation is that the W3C is trying to encourage HTML 4 standards. For example, the use of Style Sheets rather than the use of embedded <FONT xxxx> commands. I am open to persuasion, but none-the-less feel sure that a filetype should always be specified as the minimum version necessary for a reader to be able to decode it - else why bother with the declaration at all? Regards, Peter Barn Owls and more at http://www.owlsanctuary.co.uk/ See my web links page at: http://www.noctua.demon.co.uk/links/links.html PGP encryption software available free from <http://www.pgpi.org> My PGP id = 0x332B72C0, & fingerprint: 3535 9AD9 C0EA 3606 0DE4 3811 422E 10B4 332B 72C0
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 16:27:25 UTC