- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:13:20 +0000
- To: David Bean <beand@earthlink.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 09:44:28PM +0000, David Bean wrote: > Too much techo-geek speak (e.g., DTD, whatever the hell that is) A machine readable description of the language. Google is quite good at helping out when you run into technical terms you don't recognise: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Adtd Dismissing them as "techno-geek speek" isn't going to improve matters, people are going to continue to talk about DTDs since its a lot easier to type then "Text file thingy that describes what elements are allowed where in that format that was most comment when HTML was published". > and meaningless variations of Doctype (?) There are three, current, variations of HTML, and they aren't meaningless. Strict - the modern one Transitional - Strict with the legacy junk left in (for transitioning to HTML 4) Frameset - for framesets. > As to being specific -- you all have turned HTML into a monster that is > uncontrollable except by specially trained handlers. HTML is not that complex a beast ... and it hasn't changed since 1999 (when the stripping out of the legacy junk and publication of the Strict variant _simplified_ it), so I don't know why you're so angry about it now. ... and ranting vaguely at people involved in the Markup Validator instead of addressing specific concerns to those involved in the language design isn't a very effect means of resolving any issues you have. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Wednesday, 27 December 2006 22:13:28 UTC