Re: Doctype detection

On Thursday, July 27, 2000 at 10:43, webmaster@richinstyle.com (Matthew
Brealey) wrote:

> Christian Smith wrote:
> > 
> > 4) And this is the kicker, if the document does not validate as HTML
> > 2.0, the browser is free to do any darn thing it wants and still be a
> > conforming UA since the behaviour of the UA in the presense of an
> > error is undefined.
> > 
> > So, if the document has no DOCTYPE and doesn't validate as HTML 2.0 is
> > may do what it wants. If the file has a DOCTYPE but doesn't validate
> > against the specified version of HTML it can do what it wants.
> 
> This is a fine example of doublethink. On the one hand the browser is
> said to have a responsibility to cope with crappy and invalid pages by
> inflicting bugs on the rest of us,

No, the browser has the option of trying to do something reasonable in the
presense of an error. What is 'reasonable" is up to the browser. In the
presense of a validating document the browser has no such options but
should do the right thing. You don't want the quirky behaviour? Write your
documents to validate.

If your documents validate and the browser still does something stupid
then file a bug report. 

> yet on the other, when it doesn't find a DOCTYPE, in a rather feeble
> attempt at justifying the perpetuation of a broken web ad infinitum, you
> claim that it can do what it wants. 

It's not doublethink, it's the HTML specification. The specification does
not denote any specific behaviour in the presense of an error. Plain and
simple. If the document does not validate the browser may do any darn
thing it wants and still be a conforming UA.

If the document does not have a DOCTYPE and is not HTML 2.0 it is not a
valid HTML document. 

-- 
Christian Smith  |  csmith@barebones.com  |  http://web.barebones.com
PGP Fingerprint  -  60E5 2216 97D2 1D1A B923 F036 00A9 CEC0 D411 FA89

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2000 08:02:28 UTC