- From: <olafBuddenhagen@web.de>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:07:41 +0200
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Hi, Recently I realized that some constructs I considered a syntax error, are actually allowed in SGML. While examining this further, it turned out SGML allows many things that would be considered extremely broken HTML by common sense; and the HTML standard while *recommending* usage only of a few widely accepted SGML constructs, doesn't really seem to forbid anything allowed in SGML... At least the validator accepts them -- though not one of the browsers I tested (not even Mozilla) behaves the same way as the validator in all situations. Is this really the right conclusion: Is everything that's legal in SGML/accepted by the validator automaticaly valid HTML, even if this allows creating perfectly valid HTML documents that no existing browser will handle correctly? Are constructs like <--xx&<!-xx<<<hr> really correct? What about things like unclosed tags and empty tags -- how should a browser handle these? Another interesting issue is error recovery. The validator for example seems to immediately stop tag parsing and continue in content parsing when encountering an illegal character, but skips misformed attribute values or invalid declarations. Is there some kind of specification or recommendation for such behaviour, or is the browser free to handle syntax errors as it likes? -Olaf- PS. please CC: -- Don't buy away your freedom -- GNU/Linux
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 05:35:20 UTC