- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:54:06 +0200
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > such issues are controversial It shouldn't be _too_ controversional, because my Netscape 3.x can display a lot of pages without any problems. Including almost all "transitional" pages (minus CSS, <del>, and JS better than 1.1). > what should be allowed in "legacy DTD" A subset of "transitional", but a bit more than in "strict". Actually it's not that important, but it could be the fastest way to implement "tips for deprecated tags and attributes". Because I insist on "visible with my own browser", I'm forced to use "transitional", and because I use "transitional" the validator can't show me really unncessary obsolete features: I found the new "no textual content outside of block tags" rule in 1.1, because I tested XHTML 1.1 (IIRC) once just for fun with the validator. But I can't do this always, because I'd get lots of useless "align=" and "name=" errors. Therefore some of my new pages contain useless features, only because I can't test it against a "simple" DTD. Probably I'm not alone with this problem, any working fragment (with my browser) indicates a page, which can't be "strict" or better. > Naturally you can write your own DTD In theory. In practice I never tried this, and the "legacy" module is not exactly what I want. And I have no idea what modern browsers would do with a private DTD. > it could also allow some common extensions like <embed> Yes, there was a thread about this here some days ago. The author solved his problem with <object>, and I didn't want to muddy the waters with Netscape 3.x, because I have no flash plugin (or rather, I disabled a broken plugin), > I don't see why <div align="center"> would be any better > than <center> It's not exactly better. But align= is already essential for pages trying to be compatible with legacy browsers. If that's the case, then the deprectated <center> is redundant (for new pages, I'm always talking about new XHTML pages). > why <del> should be used together with <s> Like name= and id=, the latter for new browses, the former for old browsers, and any browser knowing both should be able to handle this somehow. E.g. <del> has more attributes than <s>. > <del> is only allowed with <s> That would be the idea. I was _really_ upset when I found a W3C document "diff-marked" with <del> (i.e. invisible with my browser... ;-) OTOH I was quite pleased when Lynx ignored any <font size=...> but displayed <small><big><big> like a single <big>. > Authors may wish to avoid certain transitional features and > keep using others Yes, that's me. And the W3C validator is a very good way to learn XHTML (which is IMNSHO much simpler than HTML), but at the moment it can't do anything for me if I want to avoid some unnecessary "transitional" features. > maybe start talking about the weather, or what clothes we > should wear, or what HTML design principles we should apply, The tip of the day goes in this direction, sometimes. That's not necessarily bad. And I (ab)use(d) the W3C validator as an educational tool. Bye, Frank
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:59:21 UTC