- From: Frederic Schutz <schutz@mathgen.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:16:30 +1100
- To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Le 25 Jan 2003 13:37:22 +0200, tu as ecrit : >> -- generalized HTML reference, meaning 'latest HTML recommendation' -- >> -- aka, what is published at http://www.w3.org/TR/html -- >> PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN" >> xml/1.0/xhtml1-strict.dtd >> DTDDECL "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN" >> xml/1.0/xhtml1.dcl >> PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML//EN" >> xml/1.0/xhtml1-strict.dtd >> DTDDECL "-//W3C//DTD XHTML//EN" >> xml/1.0/xhtml1.dcl >> >> Is there anything wrong using these ids, or are they just "non-official" ? > >Well, by putting "W3C" in the id's, they're basically saying that >they're from W3C, which AFAICT is not true. "-//Debian//DTD HTML//EN" >would be ok. I agree with the first part, but since they are provided for compatibility only, it would be useless to use "-//Debian//DTD HTML//EN". >Personally, I don't see what good would using such a generic "latest >HTML recommendation" public identifier be, IMHO the following blurb at >the top of the documents is roughly equivalent to it. [...] I agree. Given that these identifiers have already been in Debian for a while and that a Google search mentioned a few people that were discussing about it, I did the following while updating the Debian package that contains the XHTML DTDs: I kept all these mappings, along with a warning saying that they are unofficial, provided only to ensure compatibility and that they should not be used for new documents, along with a link to the W3C of valid mappings. >Oh, and asking this on www-html@ would probably be a good idea. Good idea, I'll do that just to make sure that this interpretation is ok ! Thanks Ville ! Frédéric
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 00:16:45 UTC