- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 02:20:57 -0700
- To: robin szemeti <robin@rszemeti.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
scripsit robin szemeti: > On Thursday 02 May 2002 09:41, Thanasis Kinias wrote: > > scripsit robin szemeti: > > > shall I post a test case, or is this known-behaviour and already in hand? > > > > A test-case or example URI would be very helpful. > > OK .. I cut out the smallest piece that exhibits the effect ... There are some strange constructs that are technically valid under SGML; is this one of them? When the DOCTYPE is manually overriden as XHMTL 1.0 Transitional, the validator complains about the missing '>', as well as all the expected problems with the <meta> elements. Are we dealing with a validator bug or an actual difference between SGML and XML? -- Thanasis Kinias Web Developer, Information Technology Graduate Student, Department of History Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A. Ash nazg durbatulūk, ash nazg gimbatul, Ash nazg thrakatulūk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 05:21:39 UTC