- 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