Doctype tags at the top of the page

Discussion in 'HTML' started by The Keith, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. The Keith

    The Keith Guest

    I've noticed that the latest version of dreamweaver (MX 2004) adds:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    to the top of every page. I noticed that this causes certain things to
    behave differently. I know it has something to do with defining the
    standards used on that page, but I was wondering why if this is so important
    did they just decide to include the url in the latest version only (wasn't
    in the older versions)? What exactly does that url do--does the page
    everytime it loads, look something up on that site to decide how to
    interpret certain html/css and if so, what if their server is down--can that
    affect your site?

    I'm a bit confused can someone please explain it to me -- thanks.
    The Keith, Oct 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Keith

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Mark Parnell, Oct 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Keith wrote:
    > I've noticed that the latest version of dreamweaver (MX 2004) adds:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    >
    > to the top of every page. I noticed that this causes certain things to
    > behave differently.


    Yep. You're a victim of the dreaded Doctype Switch. Check out
    <http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html>




    > I know it has something to do with defining the standards used on
    > that page, but I was wondering why if this is so important
    > did they just decide to include the url in the latest version only (wasn't
    > in the older versions)?


    "7.2 HTML version information
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-7.2>:
    A valid HTML document declares what version of HTML is used in the
    document. The document type declaration names the document type
    definition (DTD) in use for the document"

    "List of valid DTDs you can use in your document."
    <http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html>


    Matthias
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Oct 14, 2003
    #3
  4. The Keith

    DU Guest

    The Keith wrote:

    > I've noticed that the latest version of dreamweaver (MX 2004) adds:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    >
    > to the top of every page. I noticed that this causes certain things to
    > behave differently. I know it has something to do with defining the
    > standards used on that page, but I was wondering why if this is so important
    > did they just decide to include the url in the latest version only (wasn't
    > in the older versions)? What exactly does that url do--does the page
    > everytime it loads, look something up on that site to decide how to
    > interpret certain html/css and if so, what if their server is down--can that
    > affect your site?
    >
    > I'm a bit confused can someone please explain it to me -- thanks.
    >
    >


    There are 3 reasons why you would always want to include a doctype
    declaration in all of your documents.

    What really matters with this issue is that by choosing an appropriate
    doctype declaration, you can make most browsers (namely MSIE 6 for
    Windows which is the most popular browser in use on the web: over 50% of
    all users on the web are using it) render the webpage in standards
    compliant rendering mode. Now, this standards compliant rendering mode
    is important to aim for, to seek because most browsers will tend to
    render a page in a similar manner, in the same way. When you do that,
    your code is also smaller in size and is rendered faster on all W3C web
    standards compliant browsers, etc.. with many other positive gains from
    such. You should always try to choose a strict DTD for your doctype
    declaration.

    The other aspect is that with a doctype declaration, your document can
    be validated. And a document without a doctype declaration is not a
    valid document.


    Activating the Right Layout Mode Using the Doctype Declaration
    http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/doctype.html

    http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/res_doctype.htm (excellent resource)

    http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html

    http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch/table.html

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Oct 14, 2003
    #4
  5. The Keith

    Kris Guest

    In article <bmge88$i91$>,
    DU <> wrote:

    > There are 3 reasons why you would always want to include a doctype
    > declaration in all of your documents.
    >
    > What really matters with this issue is that by choosing an appropriate
    > doctype declaration, you can make most browsers (namely MSIE 6 for
    > Windows which is the most popular browser in use on the web: over 50% of
    > all users on the web are using it) render the webpage in standards
    > compliant rendering mode. Now, this standards compliant rendering mode
    > is important to aim for, to seek because most browsers will tend to
    > render a page in a similar manner, in the same way. When you do that,
    > your code is also smaller in size and is rendered faster on all W3C web
    > standards compliant browsers, etc.. with many other positive gains from
    > such. You should always try to choose a strict DTD for your doctype
    > declaration.
    >
    > The other aspect is that with a doctype declaration, your document can
    > be validated. And a document without a doctype declaration is not a
    > valid document.


    And the third reason?

    --
    Kris
    erlands (nl)
    Kris, Oct 14, 2003
    #5
  6. The Keith

    TheKeith Guest

    thanks everyone--that explains a lot. I'm wondering now whether I should
    update all my pages to be standards compliant? In this case though, wont
    people with older browsers be seeing my site incorrectly, since older
    browsers do not support doctype switching?



    "The Keith" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've noticed that the latest version of dreamweaver (MX 2004) adds:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    >
    > to the top of every page. I noticed that this causes certain things to
    > behave differently. I know it has something to do with defining the
    > standards used on that page, but I was wondering why if this is so

    important
    > did they just decide to include the url in the latest version only (wasn't
    > in the older versions)? What exactly does that url do--does the page
    > everytime it loads, look something up on that site to decide how to
    > interpret certain html/css and if so, what if their server is down--can

    that
    > affect your site?
    >
    > I'm a bit confused can someone please explain it to me -- thanks.
    >
    >
    TheKeith, Oct 14, 2003
    #6
  7. The Keith

    DU Guest

    TheKeith wrote:

    > thanks everyone--that explains a lot. I'm wondering now whether I should
    > update all my pages to be standards compliant?


    Why wouldn't you want to have your page comply with widely recognized
    and established W3C web standards? Your pages would render more
    consistently across web standards compliant browsers, web-aware
    applications, web-aware devices, different media, etc.. The benefits of
    authoring compliant webpages are both short term and long term ones and
    they largely outnumbers the inconvenients and drawbacks.
    With a valid document, you increase your target audience: you do not
    diminish your target audience. With a valid document, you increase its
    scope, its accessibility, interoperability: you have a better chance of
    being rendered accordingly on all kinds of devices, platforms,
    softwares, machines, in different contexts, etc.

    In this case though, wont
    > people with older browsers be seeing my site incorrectly, since older
    > browsers do not support doctype switching?
    >


    Old browsers do not support doctype switching because they don't need to
    since they only know of 1 rendering mode. Only browsers that offer 2
    rendering modes will support doctype switching. But what is important to
    know here is that a valid and validated HTML source code of a document
    with a doctype declaration defining a DTD will work best in all
    browsers, as best as such browser can render the document.

    The number one problem on the web is not with validated documents but
    rather with poorly coded pages (tag soup) to start with which are based on
    - table designs, nested tables, (most of the time, they are
    over-constrained too)
    - deprecated elements: <font>, <center> are the most frequent ones
    - inappropriate use of &nbsp; everywhere for padding, <img
    src="spacer.gif"...>,
    - document.write(), eval(), "javascript:" in href attributes,
    setTimeout(),etc. used thoughtlessly,
    - etc,etc.
    making webpages which are a monstruous amount of complex code impossible
    to update, impossible to understand. If you apply good and sane coding
    practices when doing your pages, then your pages should never have
    problems of accessibility to content and functionality with older
    browser. I personally use different accessibility engines (WAVE 3,
    HiSoftware Cynthia, colorblind viewer app., Lynx viewer, MSN-TV
    viewer,etc..) to make sure my commercial pages will work in older browsers.

    96% of all browsers in use out there have a good (didn't say excellent
    nor perfect) support for HTML 4.01, CSS1 properties and DOM1 attributes
    and methods. And the remaining 4% should be able to access your webpage
    content without a problem if your page is well coded, that is coded in a
    manner that it will degrade gracefully.

    The very first steps in designing a page is to define, to create in this
    order:

    1-content, 2-structure, 3-HTML markup code, 4-style sheet/css, 5-script
    functions, DHTML

    so that if a particular browser (or web-aware application, device,
    media, etc.) does not support a latter technology, then the page can and
    will still be rendered on a former design level (references to such
    unsupported technology are ignored).

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Oct 14, 2003
    #7
  8. While the city slept, Kris <> feverishly typed:

    > In article <bmge88$i91$>,
    > DU <> wrote:

    [...]
    > And the third reason?


    A fanatical devotion to the Pope?

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss.

    Email address is not valid. . Take the dog out!
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Oct 14, 2003
    #8
  9. "The Keith" <> wrote in message news:<>...

    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    <-- snip -->
    > What exactly does that url do--does the page
    > everytime it loads, look something up on that site to decide how to
    > interpret certain html/css and if so, what if their server is down--can that
    > affect your site?


    I am also interested in this question. Although the posts so far seem
    informative, none have addressed it. Does anyone have any info?

    Thanks
    Dave Higgins
    David Higgins, Oct 15, 2003
    #9
  10. David Higgins wrote:
    > "The Keith" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >
    >><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    >>"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    >
    > <-- snip -->
    >
    >>What exactly does that url do--does the page
    >>everytime it loads, look something up on that site to decide how to
    >>interpret certain html/css and if so, what if their server is down--can that
    >>affect your site?

    >
    >
    > I am also interested in this question. Although the posts so far seem
    > informative, none have addressed it. Does anyone have any info?


    The URL points to where the DTD resides, simple as that. The page itself
    does nothing with it - how could it? It's intended for the browser:

    "The URI used as a system identifier with the public identifier allows
    the user agent to download the DTD and entity sets as needed."
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html>


    But AFAIK no browser today 'needs' the DTD. They have their own idea of
    what's HTML and what's not, and couldn't care less whether or not your
    document follows the rules in the referenced DTD.


    Matthias
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Oct 15, 2003
    #10
  11. The Keith

    Kris Guest

    In article <bmhoin$msj0i$-berlin.de>,
    "nice.guy.nige" <> wrote:

    > > And the third reason?

    >
    > A fanatical devotion to the Pope?


    And give up my stockshares in Durex? No way!

    --
    Kris
    erlands (nl)
    "We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
    Kris, Oct 15, 2003
    #11
  12. The Keith

    TheKeith Guest

    then why does "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
    Transitional//EN">" affect your page differently than "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
    "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">" if the only difference is that url?



    "Matthias Gutfeldt" <> wrote in message
    news:bmjl90$n8nh9$-berlin.de...
    > David Higgins wrote:
    > > "The Keith" <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > >
    > >
    > >><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > >>"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    > >
    > > <-- snip -->
    > >
    > >>What exactly does that url do--does the page
    > >>everytime it loads, look something up on that site to decide how to
    > >>interpret certain html/css and if so, what if their server is down--can

    that
    > >>affect your site?

    > >
    > >
    > > I am also interested in this question. Although the posts so far seem
    > > informative, none have addressed it. Does anyone have any info?

    >
    > The URL points to where the DTD resides, simple as that. The page itself
    > does nothing with it - how could it? It's intended for the browser:
    >
    > "The URI used as a system identifier with the public identifier allows
    > the user agent to download the DTD and entity sets as needed."
    > <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html>
    >
    >
    > But AFAIK no browser today 'needs' the DTD. They have their own idea of
    > what's HTML and what's not, and couldn't care less whether or not your
    > document follows the rules in the referenced DTD.
    >
    >
    > Matthias
    >
    TheKeith, Oct 15, 2003
    #12
  13. The Keith

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "TheKeith" <> wrote:

    >then why does "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
    >Transitional//EN">" affect your page differently than "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
    >"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    >"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">" if the only difference is that url?


    In those browsers that perform doctype sniffing the version without
    triggers quirks mode and the version with triggers standards mode.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Oct 15, 2003
    #13
  14. The Keith

    DU Guest

    TheKeith wrote:

    > then why does "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
    > Transitional//EN">" affect your page differently than "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
    > "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">" if the only difference is that url?
    >
    >


    You've got a good question here, I would say.

    First of all, the W3C specs only recognize these doctype decl.:

    http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

    Second, how is standards compliant rendering mode triggered is entirely
    dependent on browser manufacturers. Which doctype declarations trigger
    which rendering mode is entirely browser dependent.

    If I'm not wrong, Opera 6 used to have only 1 rendering mode: standards
    compliant. In Opera 7, you now have 2 rendering modes possible. Opera
    dev. software also introduced another feature: the user can customize
    Opera 7 so that it will always render a page in either renderind mode,
    regardless of doctype declaration used.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Oct 16, 2003
    #14
  15. DU <> writes:

    > TheKeith wrote:
    >
    >> then why does "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
    >> Transitional//EN">" affect your page differently than "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
    >> "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">" if the only difference is that url?


    Clue challenged implementations.

    > You've got a good question here, I would say.
    >
    > First of all, the W3C specs only recognize these doctype decl.:
    >
    > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html


    For starters, the HTML 4.01 spec doesn't use any of those. Secondly,
    ISO8879 doesn't allow for crippled syntax in the first place.

    For details on the involved heuristics, see:

    <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cargo-cult-programming.html>
    <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/voodoo-programming.html>

    I note that the declaration subsets for HTML 4.0 are not 'valid' anymore
    (so far for bugwards compliance), as is ISO HTML, apparantly.

    > Second, how is standards compliant rendering mode triggered is
    > entirely dependent on browser manufacturers. Which doctype
    > declarations trigger which rendering mode is entirely browser
    > dependent.


    Good point; M$' authorative documentation of its homegrown misfeature
    implies that you shouldn't use 'standard compliant' mode for mature
    applications (for different reasons, I agree).

    > If I'm not wrong, Opera 6 used to have only 1 rendering mode:
    > standards compliant.


    You are not wrong. There *was* a reason to purchase that browser, once
    upon a time.

    > In Opera 7, you now have 2 rendering modes
    > possible.


    Emulating M$IE's incorrect box model, for example[0]; without the
    selector parsing bugs popular workarounds rely upon.

    > Opera dev. software also introduced another feature: the
    > user can customize Opera 7 so that it will always render a page in
    > either renderind mode, regardless of doctype declaration used.


    That's a known concept to your inbox; it's called *Opt Out*.

    [0] <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=j05pht0132c7h2cupc7inti200li51io8m%404ax.com>
    | Opera does not employ these techniques, whatever name you give them.
    | Opera renders pages the same (that is, as best as it can when the page
    | uses reasonable markup) regardless of what DOCTYPE is in use. Opera
    | never had a crippled CSS implementation to begin with, and it
    | certainly will not add code to mimic for example IE's broken box
    | model.


    --
    FORGLEBURP
    Eric B. Bednarz, Oct 16, 2003
    #15
  16. The Keith

    DU Guest

    Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

    > DU <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>TheKeith wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>then why does "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
    >>>Transitional//EN">" affect your page differently than "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
    >>>"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    >>>"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">" if the only difference is that url?

    >
    >
    > Clue challenged implementations.
    >
    >
    >>You've got a good question here, I would say.
    >>
    >>First of all, the W3C specs only recognize these doctype decl.:
    >>
    >>http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

    >
    >
    > For starters, the HTML 4.01 spec doesn't use any of those.


    I'm not sure I understand your reply here. You're replying to my post.
    The DTDs listed at the given url are also listed in the
    HTML 4[.01] specs:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.2


    Secondly,
    > ISO8879 doesn't allow for crippled syntax in the first place.
    >


    As far as I can see, iso-8879 is about character entities. I fail to see
    its relevance here. In any case, it's really what browsers allow and
    respond to that matters.

    > For details on the involved heuristics, see:
    >
    > <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cargo-cult-programming.html>
    > <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/voodoo-programming.html>
    >
    > I note that the declaration subsets for HTML 4.0 are not 'valid' anymore
    > (so far for bugwards compliance), as is ISO HTML, apparantly.
    >
    >
    >>Second, how is standards compliant rendering mode triggered is
    >>entirely dependent on browser manufacturers. Which doctype
    >>declarations trigger which rendering mode is entirely browser
    >>dependent.

    >
    >
    > Good point; M$' authorative documentation of its homegrown misfeature
    > implies that you shouldn't use 'standard compliant' mode for mature
    > applications (for different reasons, I agree).
    >


    I don't like the fact that MSDN and microsoft.com do not set the example
    by maturing and upgrading its own website to comply with W3C web
    standards. One on hand, it takes time to upgrade an entire website like
    microsoft.com. On the other hand, by now, microsoft had all the time
    (and resources) to do it (and to upgrade its Front Page software in
    conformance to output valid markup). So, I certainly agree with you on this.

    >
    >>If I'm not wrong, Opera 6 used to have only 1 rendering mode:
    >>standards compliant.

    >
    >
    > You are not wrong. There *was* a reason to purchase that browser, once
    > upon a time.
    >
    >
    >>In Opera 7, you now have 2 rendering modes
    >>possible.

    >
    >
    > Emulating M$IE's incorrect box model, for example[0]; without the
    > selector parsing bugs popular workarounds rely upon.
    >
    >
    >>Opera dev. software also introduced another feature: the
    >>user can customize Opera 7 so that it will always render a page in
    >>either renderind mode, regardless of doctype declaration used.

    >
    >
    > That's a known concept to your inbox; it's called *Opt Out*.
    >
    > [0] <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=j05pht0132c7h2cupc7inti200li51io8m%404ax.com>
    > | Opera does not employ these techniques, whatever name you give them.
    > | Opera renders pages the same (that is, as best as it can when the page
    > | uses reasonable markup) regardless of what DOCTYPE is in use. Opera
    > | never had a crippled CSS implementation to begin with, and it
    > | certainly will not add code to mimic for example IE's broken box
    > | model.
    >
    >


    I don't like this change in markup rendering either; this is going
    against what sound and wise website authoring should aim at.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Oct 16, 2003
    #16
  17. TheKeith wrote:
    > then why does "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
    > Transitional//EN">" affect your page differently than "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
    > "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">" if the only difference is that url?


    I posted the answer to that question two days ago in the same thread:
    <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bmg7kc%24lteo9%241%40ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>


    Matthias
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Oct 16, 2003
    #17
  18. Toby A Inkster, Oct 16, 2003
    #18
  19. The Keith

    DU Guest

    Toby A Inkster wrote:
    > DU wrote:
    >
    >
    >>First of all, the W3C specs only recognize these doctype decl.:
    >>http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

    >
    >
    > Are you implying that a DTD without a URL is invalid? Because it's not.
    >


    I go with what the W3C recommends. And here, what I'm mostly concerned
    with and mostly interested in is
    1- to have a fully compliant document and
    2- a document which will be rendered in standards compliant rendering
    mode in all browsers with 2 rendering modes.
    Once these 2 goals are achieved, then I'm happy and I'm less concerned
    by other issues.

    If a DTD without a system ID was invalid, then I would expect the W3C
    validator to indicate so. I know there are custom DTDs but then you
    *have to* provide the url (system ID) where the formal rules of syntax,
    element names, attributes names, etc. can be found and loaded in memory.

    > For any "PUBLIC" DTD (as against "SYSTEM" DTDs), no URL is needed.
    >


    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Oct 16, 2003
    #19
  20. DU <> writes:

    > Eric B. Bednarz wrote:


    >>>http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html


    >> For starters, the HTML 4.01 spec doesn't use any of those.


    Hint: view source

    > I'm not sure I understand your reply here.


    Human communication usually fails, so there's nothing to worry about
    (assuming you are human :).

    > You're replying to my post.


    I'm 100% positive about that, though.

    > The DTDs listed at the given url are also listed in the
    > HTML 4[.01] specs:


    Those are doctype *declarations*, */not/ _definitions_*.

    > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.2


    Section 7.2 is utter complete nonsense, since it doesn't conform with

    >> ISO8879


    which

    >> doesn't allow for crippled syntax in the first place.

    >
    > As far as I can see, iso-8879 is about character entities.


    Pardon? As far as I can see SGML is about standard generalized markup
    and supposed to be HTML's mothership.

    A list of normative references is here:
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/references.html#h-1.1>
    You SHOULD have stumbled upon it when you followed the hyperlink on top
    of section 7.2 which indicates for no apparent where you SHALL NOT find
    the creeping featurisms that follow (version information, my arse).

    > I fail to see its relevance here.


    That's an established tradition ever since HTML was reverse-engineered
    to SGML. You are excused.


    --
    "In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older
    than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience."
    --Oscar Wilde
    Eric B. Bednarz, Oct 16, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob Nicholson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    663
    Rob Nicholson
    May 28, 2005
  2. Frederic HOUDE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    586
    Frederic HOUDE
    Aug 31, 2004
  3. Cuthbert
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    418
    Ancient_Hacker
    Sep 13, 2006
  4. AAaron123
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    557
    AAaron123
    Nov 5, 2009
  5. Larry Lindstrom
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,268
    Jonathan N. Little
    Jun 12, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page