- From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:45:32 -0400
- To: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote: > > I saw that Dan Connolly and Larry Masinter published an Internet Draft > for the long overdue update of the definition of "text/html." Good > work! > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-connolly-text-html-00.txt [snip] > 4) Section 2 says that doctype can be used to distinguish the > versions. It should probably also say something about the absence of a > doctype, which is allowed at least in HTML 2.0. This is often asserted, but I don't believe that it's true. From <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_3.html#SEC3.3>: +To identify information as an HTML document conforming to this +specification, each document must start with one of the following +document type declarations. Note the use of "must". > Maybe it should say > that the absence of a doctype means version 4.01 (or the "latest > version" in case there are any after 4.01). Or maybe that the absence > of a doctype means that all bets are off... According to my reading of HTML 2.0, 3.2, and 4.0, conforming documents must have a doctype. I don't think a draft on the text/html media type should attempt to change this. -- Liam Quinn A Real Validator for Windows, http://arealvalidator.com Web Design Group, http://www.htmlhelp.com
Received on Monday, 27 September 1999 10:44:29 UTC