W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2001

Re: FPI and URI for dtd

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:52:44 +0100
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <dbctatgrdhllriufeve6dvd75mrl8rpk6p@4ax.com>
* Karl Dubost wrote:
>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. :)
>    <HEAD>
>       <TITLE>My first HTML document</TITLE>
>    </HEAD>
>    <BODY>
>       <P>Hello world!</P>
>    </BODY>
>is a valid document although the FPI and the dtd are not the same. 
>Should we modify the validator to make it warning when it's the case?

HTML 4.01 specifies three DTDs, so authors must include one of the 
following document type declarations in their documents. The DTDs vary 
in the elements they support.

The HTML 4.01 Strict DTD includes all elements and attributes that have
not been deprecated or do not appear in frameset documents. For
documents that use this DTD, use this document type declaration: 


Does this mean, that every document that does not use one of the given
document type declaration (and exactly one of those) isn't conforming to
the recommendation? What about this statement some lines later:

[...] Authors may also choose to use a system identifier that refers to
a specific (dated) version of an HTML 4 DTD when validation to that
particular DTD is required.[...]

Isn't this inconsistent?

I think section 7.2 allows a conforming application to use some system
to resolve PIs locally, so it's no task for a validator to complain
about such things. HTML Tidy would be the better tool for this, or any
additional tool as Nick suggested.
Björn Höhrmann ^ mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de ^ http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 ° Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 ° http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll # PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 # http://learn.to/quote [!]e
        -- If something is worth writing it is worth keeping --         
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 18:51:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:20 UTC