Re: How Important is it that a Site is HTML Compliant to W3 Standards?
- From: Geoff Berrow <blthecat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:35:46 +0100
Message-ID: <6htkCQqTN3xGFw+6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from
Dr J R Stockton contained the following:
One should not choose the DOCTYPE merely to control the number of error
messages.
One should choose the doctype that describes your document. If you use
deprecated elements or attributes, such as <font> or target= then you
should use a transitional doctype. If you only use recommended
elements and attributes then you should use a strict doctype.
That's only necessary if one is positively claiming conformance. I
would rather know that the whole page was compliant with strict, apart
from one known harmless exception, than know only that the whole page
was compliant with less-strict.
Of course, I could write check with strict and change the doctype for
publication in order to claim validity; but then I'd have to check that
the change did not affect the page display.
That's exactly my view.
--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
.
- References:
- Re: How Important is it that a Site is HTML Compliant to W3 Standards?
- From: Stevie D
- Re: How Important is it that a Site is HTML Compliant to W3 Standards?
- From: Dr J R Stockton
- Re: How Important is it that a Site is HTML Compliant to W3 Standards?
- Prev by Date: Re: How Important is it that a Site is HTML Compliant to W3 Standards?
- Next by Date: Re: How Important is it that a Site is HTML Compliant to W3 Standards?
- Previous by thread: Re: How Important is it that a Site is HTML Compliant to W3 Standards?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading