- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:36:13 +0100
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Also sprach Nick Kew: > > 1) lack of DOCTYPE in documents, and > > 2) lack of <meta http-equiv > > In the case of 1), the validator will refuse to process the document > > and the retuned page has no options for revalidation (which it has when > > the URL is sent). I think this problem could be improved if there was > > a way for us to tell the validator "please look for a DOCTYPE in what > > we send you, if you can't find any use HTML 4.01 transitional". > > I tend to agree with you there. Of course, it will still complain > about the missing doctype. > > We can get this behaviour by adding a DOCTYPE HTML line to the > HTML catalogue file, causing OpenSP to infer <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM> > when it encounters an <HTML> root element. That won't help when the > <html> element itself is missing, but that seems to be relatively > unusual these days, except in severely broken pages. Yup. This fix seems very reasonable and I would be thankful if it can be applied to the instance running on validator.w3.org > > 2) is slightly trickier. Most pages include this information in the > > HTTP header, but Opera does not pass this information along with the > > source. Is there a way for us to do so? One that would be overridden > > by the META tag, if found? > > Surely that's a matter for you as browser developer to fix? True, we can probably fix it if there is no option. I'd prefer not to have to remember the Content-Type header for all documents, though. -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie cto °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 17:37:11 UTC