- From: Gavin Lambert <gavinl@compacsort.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:37:54 +1300
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Okay, this makes more sense now, thanks. Still, shouldn't that sort of thing have produced a warning/error "Element BASEFONT not allowed here; implicitly inserting tags </HEAD><BODY> and continuing.", or something like that? That would have removed any confusion. Having tags implicitly inserted in itself is not an error in the page's HTML, but having it happen because of an illegal element should be considered an error, I would think, particularly if the goal is to get people to write "clean" HTML (or HTML-writing software). --- Original Message --- > > 1: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > > 2: <html> > > 3: <head> > > 4: <title>Pueblo/UE News</title> > > 5: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; > > charset=iso-8859-1"> > > 6: <basefont face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2> > > 7: <style type="text/css"> > [...] > > The culprit is the basefont element which is not allowed in HEAD > and thus implicitly closes it and begins the BODY. See the parse > tree at <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpueblo.sf.net%2F&doctype =HTML+4.01+Transitional&ss=1&sp=1#parse>
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 23:35:03 UTC