- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:25:07 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Gavin Lambert <gavinl@compacsort.com>
- Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Gavin Lambert wrote: > > 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 but basefont *is* allowed there. It changes the definition of "there". That's just the rules. > </HEAD><BODY> and continuing.", or something like that? That would have > removed any confusion. That's where you benefit from a source tree. You may find Page Valet's "visual" option clearer. Alternatively, validating in "fussy" mode will complain at your basefont. That's available in Page Valet, and in the beta of the W3 validator. > 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). Think of the validator as like a lawyer. It's an honest lawyer - so it can never rise beyond the bottom rung of its profession, nor get lucrative business - but it does apply the rules in a pedantically correct manner. As a corollary, it doesn't apply non-rules, even when they'd help. -- Nick Kew
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 00:29:44 UTC