 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date] Re: Modularization question
From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:06:31 +0200 (EET) To: "patomas ." <patomas@hotmail.com> Cc: www-html@w3.org Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0601131252010.8204@korppi.cs.tut.fi> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, patomas . wrote: > Some time ago, i was making some tests and a document with this DTD was > registered as a valid document: > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus Target 1.0//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd "> That would be odd. When did W3C announce such a formal public identifier? As far as I've understood XML specs correctly, a processor may ignore the FPI and use the URL, which here means using the XHTML 1.1 document type definition. > Now, i was checking the same old document and the w3c validator reports > it as invalid. When I tried to validate a simple document with such a DOCTYPE declaration, using direct input option, the validator indeed says This page is not Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus Target 1.0//EN! which is absurd. The validator does not actually use a document type definition with that FPI (it does not exist), yet it echoes it here. This has been discussed previously. The validator _should_ say that the page is valid or is not valued. Well, it could add "as an SGML document" or "as an XML document", but nothing more. > Ther is no way thru modularization to validate frames, targets and > similar things? In practical authoring, modularization and XHTML are mostly exercises in futility; frames and targets are worse. Combining the two looks undescribably pointless to me. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 11:25:09 GMT |
|
||||||||||||||||
