On Apr 6, 2005 11:22 AM, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I > disagree with that statement anyway. Validators should not be > non-conformant simply because they only do their job to validate a > document and nothing else.
Absolutely, if there is a continued use of a doctype, then a validator is absolutely correct to validate to it, so either the validator should remain conformant, or the doctype should be dropped. (or explicitly marked as this is not an SGML or XML doctype it is simply some cargo cult you should include as your first line) > I don't see any reason why such a statement > needs to be included at all. Neither do I, it's completely unreasonable to say that an incredibly useful QA tool is non-conformant, simply because the editor doesn't consider those benefits in the same way. > > In any case, assuming I'm still the editor when the parsing section gets > > written, > > Why wouldn't you be? Because they might present the work to a standards body who gets a new editor? or some disgruntled reader may ... hmm, no, let's not go there... > > HTML5 will most likely stop the pretense of HTML being an SGML application. > > What the? I disagree with that. HTML should remain an application of > SGML, and browser's should be built to conform properly. Fully agree. Jim.
