- From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:27:35 -0600
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On 2014-01-28 09:51, John Cowan wrote:
> Paul Grosso scripsit:
>
>> where--as I said in my previous message--you claim that
>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>> <html/>
>> is "invalid", but I believe it to be well-formed (do you disagree
>> that it is well-formed?), hence my confusion about your definition of
>> "invalid".
> It is indeed well-formed but not valid, for it violates the Element Valid VC.
>
Understood.
But I understand that Henry is calling some documents such as
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html/>
invalid and others such as
<html/>
neither valid nor invalid.
Since they are both well-formed but not valid, I'm confused
as to how Henry is trying to define invalid.
paul
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 16:28:00 UTC