- From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
- Date: 30 Nov 1996 23:12:22 +0000 (GMT)
- To: galactus@htmlhelp.com (ArnoudEngelfriet)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
> Right. No-one in their right minds should expect 3.2 to be anything
> other than a toy.
Then which DTD should I advise people to validate against if they're
just beginning to understand the necessity of validation? HTML 3.2
with CLASS would cover almost every current document, except those
using frames.
I should have qualified that: I was speaking from the standpoint of
the experienced user. For a beginner I guess pretty much whatever
comes to hand, from HTML 2.0 to Cougar.
Is HTML Pro already available on Webtechs or the KGV? Do you think
it would be a good alternative to HTML 3.2?
I believe it is in some of the public validators already (I've been
traveling a lot recently, so I'm not up to date on soem of the
backlog). I would not recommend HTML Pro for the beginner.
Second, if I adapt my copy of HTML 3.2 to something I like, I can
validate all my documents easily, using SP or something. But then
what DOCTYPE declaration should I use, if I want advanced browsers
that support arbitrary DTDS to be able to parse my documents?
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//WDG//DTD HTML 3.2g//EN"
"http://www.htmlhelp.com/dtd/html-3.2g">
That looks fine, maybe call the filename part of the URL "html-3.2g.dtd"
in case any UAs get picky.
///Peter
Received on Saturday, 30 November 1996 18:12:37 UTC