- 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