- From: Fred Bone <Fred.Bone@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:40:18 +0100
- To: html-tidy@w3.org
On 11 Jul 2002 at 12:09, Jelks Cabaniss wrote: > > Fred Bone wrote: > > > > tryjunk.html: Document content looks like HTML 3.2 > > [...] > > > Neither of the warnings, nor the inference about HTML 3.2, look > > > correct to me. > > > What in your document do you consider to be invalid in HTML3.2? > > I think he's saying "I specified in my DOCTYPE declaration that I wanted > HTML 4.0 Transitional, so why is it giving me that message about HTML > 3.2?" Once the "</" script problem is fixed, it *should* validate as > either 3.2 or 4.x Transitional, so that appears to be a rather spurious > comment on Tidy's part. Make sure you're using the newest version of > Tidy... Well yes, but this is perhaps the second strongest candidate for the FAQ (after the one about "</" in scripts): Tidy obligingly tells you the "lowest" version of HTML with which your document conforms, i.e. the least one you can get away with. But people don't seem to like being told, for some reason.
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 12:41:01 UTC