- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:23:35 +0000
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
At 13:14 +0000 2001-03-13, Nick Kew wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>> SGML gurus,
>
>Are there any on this list?
:) we are all learning everyday!
> > I'm in the process of starting of set of documents to build a test
>> suite for HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 and I have detected something that
>> seems to NOT be a problem for the HTML validator. :)
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/foo.dtd">
>
>This situation has been discussed (at least in passing) on ciwah.
>
>The issue is of course that the validator, on encountering an
>FPI that can be resolved internally, ignores the external DTD.
ok no problem with this.
>AFAIK, this is correct behaviour. Any change would therefore be
>incorrect in the context of validation. It should be introduced
>only in the context of a decision to offer optional extra checks,
>as in the Page Valet.
My proposal was NOT to validate depending on the external
DTD, but just verify that the FPI match to the external DTD. It's why
I think it could be good to have a warning saying:
"yoohoo authors, your FPI and your DTD are not compatible"
A 'warning' is not an 'error'.
--
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
http://www.w3.org/QA/
--- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 08:25:14 UTC