- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 11:29:48 -0400
- To: WWW HTML List <www-html@w3.org>
At 10:08 AM 10/4/96 +0100, James Aylett wrote: >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 DTD is part of the spec. DTDs cannot express every constraint that one might want to express (for instance a DTD can't check if an attribute conforms to the URI spec) so the written specification adds information to it. I don't know what one would do if they were in conflict. Generally speaking, there isn't any algorithm to figure out which part of a single specification is "more authoritative" than another. Paul Prescod
Received on Friday, 4 October 1996 11:34:51 UTC