- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:42:37 +0000
- To: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
- CC: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Kuper wrote: > Actually, the HTML 4.01 spec is slightly mealy-mouthed on this point. > See s.19.1 [1]: [...] > My reading of this, especially the last sentence I've quoted above, is > that while automated "validators" detect "a large set of errors that > make documents invalid", they cannot catch all such errors. Since > avoiding all such errors seems to be synonymous with conforming to the > HTML 4 specification, this appears to imply that the sample document you > presented is, indeed, invalid. OK, here I respectfully disagree. It clashes with a "should not", not with a "must not", and therefore if that is the only deviation from the specification the document remains valid. Were it to clash with a "must not" that is enshrined in the prose but not captured in the DTD, then I would accept its putative invalidity. > Synonymously, it is not in conformance with the spec. I'm not certain that I agree with "synonymously"; it conflicts with the specification but remains valid, IMHO. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2008 12:43:18 UTC