- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:03:06 -0400
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> Ian Hickson wrote: >> >>> This doesn't stop conformance checker implements from writing DTDs of >>> their own and then placing them in their SGML catalog so that the >>> HTML5 DOCTYPE triggers that DTD, though. The point is that different >>> conformance checker vendors should be able to write their own DTD for >>> HTML5 to complement the rest of the conformance checking process. As >>> the mix between DTD-based and other checking will probably be >>> vendor-dependent, I don't see why we'd want to elevate any particular >>> DTD to official status. > > If every conformance checker has to implement their own, there's more > chance they some of them will make mistakes, and each end up with > differing DOCTYPES. If that happens, then chances are each validator > would give differing results, which is even more confusing and would > result in no-one validating at all! If there is only one official > DOCTYPE, then at least all validators would have a chance of giving > identical results, and mistakes can be managed from one place by filing > errata for it, and updating it as necessary. +1, although I think "result in no-one validating at all" is over-exaggerating a bit. :) ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 19:03:06 UTC