Re: TAG closing! I got proof now! :)

>On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Carl Morris wrote:
>
>> BUT read the spec, not the DTD!  Yuo will read that it implies that at
>> least browsers should probably expect the end tag to be missing ...
>> maybe in lue of the 3.0 DTD?
>
>Ooh, I've gone all cautious now. Am I right in saying that the spec _is_
>the DTD (being a markup language and all)? If not, then the spec has got
>to be infinitely big, surely, to deal with browser types that don't yet
>exist yet (rendering into a hologram, for instance).

The specification includes an SGML declaration, a DTD, and a description of
the application conventions. All three are essential. The specification
doesn't specify the behavior of existing UAs, UAs are expected to follow
the suggested behavior of the specification. Like any specification. Where
the specification leaves off, it's uncharted territory; expect reefs and
rocks.

Note that end tag minimization is not specified in the DTD, but in the SGML
declaration:

from HTML 2.0's SGML declaration (RFC 1866):
[...]
    FEATURES
      MINIMIZE
        DATATAG  NO
        OMITTAG  YES
        RANK     NO
        SHORTTAG YES
[...]

Murray

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
     Murray Altheim, Program Manager
     Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
     email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com>
     http:  <http://www.cambridge.spyglass.com/murray/murray.html>
            "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."

Received on Friday, 4 October 1996 11:00:59 UTC