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


From: Chris Garaffa <aquax@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:45:36 -0400
To: Arthur Gouveia <arthurgouveia@yahoo.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-id: <695B05FC-A16D-11D5-BFE2-003065FBBAF0@dyn.optonline.net>
I think it's great that you validated your page against a DTD, but now, 
that page seems as if it will only work in IE 3 (granted I  know nothing 
about the MSIE 3.0 DTD). Besides the age of the browser, wouldn't 
validating as HTML 3 work better? Then your page would work pretty much 
The reason I respond to the list as well is because of the thread from a 
while back (last message on Aug 22) "Shaming compaines into improving 
their HTML"
While I'm not wanting to shame Arthur, I feel this could be a good 
example to use. Instead of using browser-specific tags that don't comply 
with a DTD, using no DTD at all, or using a browser-specific DTD, more 
pages should be created to be compatible with HTML 4.01 or XHTML DTDs .
Maybe off-topic, maybe the start of a discussion.

Chris Garaffa

On Sunday, September 2, 2001, at 09:16 PM, Arthur Gouveia wrote:

> I've validated a document of type PUBLIC "-//Microsoft//DTD Internet 
> Explorer 3.0 HTML//EN" but W3C don't have an icon of it. I did one 
> myself, I think you could use. I'm sending it attached to the message

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 15:45:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:23 UTC