Re: Validator errors

At 09:09 PM 1/30/2000 , Dan Connolly wrote:
>Was doctype-sniffing a documented feature of the validator? If so,
>I think Gerald's idea makes sense:
>         "I'm assuming XHTML; if you don't want that, here's info on adding
>         an HTML doctype..."
 > [...]
>XHTML is the only HTML dialect where a <!DOCTYPE...> isn't required,
>so it makes perfect sense to check for XHTML when you don't see one.

No, it's an absurd concept and one that Gerald should definitely
change if he wants the W3C's validator to be anything other than
a curiousity.  If he wants it to be a useful tool for web authors
with less than working-group level of the XHTML/XML/HTML specs to
be able to use, it should default to HTML 4.01, not to XHTML 1.0.

If it continues to use XHTML as the default for documents which
are missing a doctype, the validator will cease to be useful to
most people, and in fact, I will recommend (loudly, too -- including
the HTML Writers Guild homepage link) to everyone that they do
-not- use this newbie-unfriendly validation tool and instead use
the htmlhelp validator or something else which does not produce
bizarre XML errors when someone is trying to check the validity
of their HTML page.

I remember when this validator was the Kinder, Gentler Validator.
That title was lost in name years ago, and slowly over time the
feeling behind it was lost too; now, with XHTML as the default,
the name can't even really be applied as a familiar name anymore.

In short:  Gerald, I care strongly about this, and I urge you to
change this as soon as possible.  XHTML was made official, what,
4 days ago?  It's madness to set it as your default, and it 
vastly, VASTLY decreases the usefulness of the W3C validator as
a tool for teaching valid HTML.

Kynn Bartlett  <>         
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet
Become AWARE of Web Accessibility!        
The Spring 2000 Virtual Dog Show is now open!

Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 00:40:45 UTC