In article <9obmhv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Garth Wallace"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Gus wrote:
[...]
> > Perhaps I need to clarify:
> > The document
> > http://css.nu/temp/valid-test1.html
> > is written in HTML 4.01 Strict and validates.
> >
> > Problem #1:
> > It will not display with Mozilla due to SGML Shorttag usage, although
> > it is legal and validates (only Opera displays something, although
> > not properly).
>
> Does it validate with the W3C's HTML validator,
Yes.
> or with an SGML validator using the HTML 4.01 doctype?
The W3C validator uses an SGML parser.
> HTML doesn't have some SGML features--
Real-life implementations of (other than Emacs-W3) HTML don't support
SHORTTAG. It is in the spec, though.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/sgmldecl.html
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html
> the SGML spec isn't entirely normative for HTML.
According to the spec, it is. In real life, it isn't treated that way.
Also, some SGML folks don't like the normative reference.
> AIUI, Mozilla's "view source" is generated from the DOM tree.
Which is a Bad Thing.
> HTML has never supported the </> notation to my knowledge.
> Same with that <P/This page validates as/<P> thing (are you
> missing a > there?)
Check out
http://www.hut.fi/~hsivonen/test/minimal-valid.html
http://www.hut.fi/~hsivonen/test/minimization.html
with the validator, Emacs-W3 and Mozilla.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
