- From: Kevin Reddigan <kreddigan@roadrunner.nf.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:48:52 -0500 (EST)
- To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3DD008CF.5070302@roadrunner.nf.net>
Greetings, I'm afraid that the pros and cons of SGML standards are way over my head. My skills in HTML are very rudimentary thus my main objective was to find some online tools that I could use to check and verify the site pages that I have built with my limited knowledge. I'm not sure what was going on with Netscape 4.7 Composer but I had a look at later versions of Netscape and the preferences associated with the Composer appear to be more flexible. I also noticed that Netscape 6.2 and 7 composers have a Validate HTML feature which takes users to the 3WC HTML Validation Service page. This is the location with the validate and link test features that I had previously chosen to use. I have down-loaded Netscape 7 and I had hoped that it would provide a good spellchecker and a "pretty print" formatter for my pages. Again some shortcomings, the "pretty print" reformat feature (that supposedly was in Netscape 6.2) doesn't appear to be in Netscape 7. As for the spellchecker , it still changes the document to lower case, even though it leaves the DOCTYPE info in uppercase! I also noticed that it reformats some of the source HTML and rearranges the source page layout even with the preferences on the Composer set to "Retain original source formatting". Thank you both for your replies. I think that Ville made a valid point. I didn't try all the various combinations to see which doctype formats the 3WC validator would reject, but here are two (below) that it will accept . I know that pages with either one of these formats validate okay. As you will notice both of these formats have some lower case elements in them. What should the "standard" be? Who knows!! It is very confusing for "hobbyists" like myself. I will let greater minds debate the subtleties of these and other issues. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> Sincerely, Kevin Reddigan Ville Skyttä wrote: >On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 03:13, Nick Kew wrote: > > > >>>Can anyone tell me why the DOCTYPE etc. must be in UPPER CASE for the >>>3WC validation? >>> >>> >>Because that's the SGML rules. A validator that didn't complain when >>presented with an invalid document wouldn't be much use. >> >> > >Is it really so? AFAIK in *SGML* document type declarations, the only >case-sensitive part is the public identifier string.. In X(HT)ML, the >case rules are a lot stricter(/better). So all these would be equally >valid (but I see no reason not to follow the XML doctype declaration >rules, ie. the first or last of the following examples, depending on the >case of the root "html" element, and appended with a system id): > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> ><!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> ><!DocType hTmL pUBliC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> > >Please prove me wrong, really! I'd love to see good pointers to >refererences where this is cleary spelled out in some (SGML) spec. > >So, IMO this is a limitation in the validator (and is already reported >as a bug in the beta test). > > > >>>I use Netscape spellchecker which changes all coding to lowercase >>> >>> >>That sounds like a serious bug. >> >> > >Indeed. > > >
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 19:09:53 UTC