- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:01:49 -0600
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- CC: www-validator@w3.org, gerald@w3.org
Kynn Bartlett wrote: > > 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 Absurd? On the contrary... it's a logical necessity. > and one that Gerald should definitely > change if he wants the W3C's validator to be anything other than > a curiousity. I don't see how Gerald is in a position to change either (a) what the specs say nor (b) the rules of logic. -- Dan Connolly tel:+1-512-310-2971 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 10:04:06 UTC