HTML compliance

Howard Kaikow

Where is the official documentation of what constitutes a minimally
compliant HTML file?

--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.

Jul 23 '05 #1

Subscribe Post Reply

3855

David Dorward

Howard Kaikow wrote:

Where is the official documentation of what constitutes a minimally
compliant HTML file?

http://w3.org/TR/html4/ - although I don't think it is spelt out in so many
words.

At a minimum an HTML 4.01 Strict document must contain the Doctype, a title,
and some content (which much be in a block level element since the body
element[1] cannot hold character data directly).

However, its good practise to include the HTML, HEAD, and BODY tags too
since browsers don't usually implement HTML as an SGML application.

[1] The tags for the body element are optional, but it still exists.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Jul 23 '05 #2

Nick Kew

In article <co*******************@news.demon.co.uk>,
David Dorward <do*****@yahoo.com> writes:

At a minimum an HTML 4.01 Strict document must contain the Doctype, a title,
and some content

Not *content*, just sufficient *markup* to imply the necessary parts
of a structure.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"><title//<p/

To the OP: your answer is 42.

--
Nick Kew

Jul 23 '05 #3

Lachlan Hunt

Nick Kew wrote:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"><title//<p/

Yes, while that is technically valid, the OP should be aware the most
user agents do not support the SHORTTAG syntax used in that example. A
minimally conforming document, that will also be parsed correctly in all
user agents:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"><title></title><p>

Ignoring the whitespace differences [1] for now, the above is equivalent
to the following, and will produce an identical DOM.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>

[1] Note: Whitespace does actually result in a text node within the DOM,
but for the purpose of this example, it can be ignored.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web

Jul 23 '05 #4

Harrie

Lachlan Hunt said the following on 12/04/04 13:47:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">

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

To get browsers in Standards Compliance Mode I would add the URL to the
DTD, like the DTD itself says in "Typical usage":

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html

or

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd

--
Regards
Harrie

Jul 23 '05 #5

Howard Kaikow

I am looking for a formal spec that states the REQUIREMENTS, not the
recommendations.
I ask because I've encountered HTML file that has no DOCTYPE, HTML or BODY
tags and the creator is insisting that such a file is conforming.

Jul 23 '05 #6

Alan J. Flavell

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Harrie wrote:

To get browsers in Standards Compliance Mode I would add the URL to
the DTD,
Yes, but that's a completely different issue. It has nothing at all
to do with whether the HTML document itself is compliant to its DTD.

Don't confuse issues of SGML compliance, which are purely formal, with
details of heuristic behaviour by browsers du jour.

And the decision to (mis)interpret these details of a DTD as being
the author's advertisement of "this is tag-soup" versus "this is real
HTML" can only be described as heuristic, IMNSHO.
like the DTD itself says in "Typical usage":

Erm, to be pedantic, the /comments/ that you find in a DTD are in no
way normative. Some of them are even misleading - see the comment in
the DTD relating to the IMG's ALT attribute - it's in fundamental
contradiction to what the body of the HTML specification says, and the
latter is what the WAI deem to be good practice. Me too, as it
happens.

Jul 23 '05 #7

Howard Kaikow

In case anyone's interested, here is the HTML, with real info replaced.
Could this really be strictly conforming HTML?
------------------------------------------------
<title>Billing status</title>
<h2>Usage shown for 11/2004</h2>

This only covers a single month, and does not take
into consideration any previous balance.
<br>
(the information displayed may not include any current connections
or connections terminating within the last 25 minutes)

<hr>
<pre>
Account: xxxxxx-yy
Edward Bagels
Edward Bagels
xx yyy zzzz
aaaaaa, bb 12345-6789
Home Phone: (000) 555-1212
FAX:
Billing contact: Edward Bagels
email: no****@ishome.biz
Discount: ggggg (20.0%)
Created: 87654321
Closed: not
Billing Method: email
Bill To: no****@ishome.biz
-----
T Name # Usage Level Price Total
I aaaaaaaaaa 229 162:36:17 Normal rr.ss tt.00 -ggggg
created 11111111 closed: not
-----
T Name Level Price Total
W ggggggg/aaaaaaaaaa Standard 0.00 0.00 -ggggg
www.aaaaaaaaaa.biz Alias q.00 h.00
created 22222222 closed: not
-----
T Domain Name Minimum Price Total
N aaaaaaaaaa.biz 0.00 0.00 -ggggg
created 33333333 closed: not
-----
Price: $ aa.bb
Discounts applied: $ v.bb
Minimum for accounts: $ rr.00
Total charges: $ rr.00
Note: usage information shown here may only be accurate as of
the most recent data gathering cycle, and does not include
credits, debits, etc.
This is not an invoice.
</pre>
<hr>
<p>

Jul 23 '05 #8

Harrie

Alan J. Flavell said the following on 12/04/04 14:49:

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Harrie wrote:
To get browsers in Standards Compliance Mode I would add the URL to
the DTD,

Yes, but that's a completely different issue. It has nothing at all
to do with whether the HTML document itself is compliant to its DTD.

Agreed. I just wanted to add it so the OP knows about different formats
of DOCTYPE and what it triggers, but you're right, it has nothing to do
with SGML compliance.

like the DTD itself says in "Typical usage":

Erm, to be pedantic, the /comments/ that you find in a DTD are in no
way normative. Some of them are even misleading - see the comment in
the DTD relating to the IMG's ALT attribute - it's in fundamental
contradiction to what the body of the HTML specification says, and the
latter is what the WAI deem to be good practice. Me too, as it
happens.

I just added that as an example, but thanks for your remark, I wasn't
aware of that. I appreciate pedantic remarks, especially with technical
discussions, so I can keep learning.

--
Regards
Harrie

Jul 23 '05 #9

Michael Winter

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:35:07 -0500, Howard Kaikow <ka****@standards.com>
wrote:

I am looking for a formal spec
The HTML 4.01 Specification (<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html4>) as produced
by the W3C is the normative document for the current version of HTML.
that states the REQUIREMENTS, not the recommendations.
You've been told the requirements: a DOCTYPE, a TITLE element, and some
form of content within the BODY element. What that content can be depends
on the DOCTYPE used: for Strict, a block-level element or SCRIPT element;
for Transitional, any element or text.
I ask because I've encountered HTML file that has no DOCTYPE, HTML or
BODY tags
It's already been stated that in HTML the start and end tags for the HTML,
HEAD and BODY elements are optional. The elements are always present, but
they don't need to be specified explicitly. They usually are though for
clarity.

For a document to be valid, it must include a DOCTYPE declaration. From
section 7.2 - HTML version information:

"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..."

and from section 4.2 - SGML, paragraph 2:

"For the sake of brevity, most of the examples in this
specification do not begin with the document type declaration that
is mandatory at the beginning of each HTML document."
and the creator is insisting that such a file is conforming.

That person is wrong.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

Jul 23 '05 #10

Neal

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:09:53 +0000, Nick Kew <ni**@hugin.webthing.com>
wrote:

In article <co*******************@news.demon.co.uk>,
David Dorward <do*****@yahoo.com> writes:
At a minimum an HTML 4.01 Strict document must contain the Doctype, a
title,
and some content

Not *content*, just sufficient *markup* to imply the necessary parts
of a structure.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"><title//<p/

To the OP: your answer is 42.

OP did not ask for "valid" - he asked for "compliant", which I assume
suggests a functioning page. While the above is indeed "valid", it is
really of no practical value to the OP.

Jul 23 '05 #11

Howard Kaikow

"Michael Winter" <M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote in message
news:opsihm8isix13kvk@atlantis...

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:35:07 -0500, Howard Kaikow <ka****@standards.com>
wrote:
I am looking for a formal spec

The HTML 4.01 Specification (<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html4>) as produced
by the W3C is the normative document for the current version of HTML.

I've looked at that spec and it is not explicit enough stating what is
REQUIRED,

The spec states:

"Here's an example of a simple HTML document:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>My first HTML document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P>Hello world!
</BODY>
</HTML>"

However, it is not clear (to me) that BOTH the HEAD And BODY tags are
required, or if even either is required..
I'd like to find text that states:

0. A DOCTYPE tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1.
1. An HTML tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1.
2. A HEAD tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1, but I recall seeing a statememnt somewhere that HEAD need not be
included if BODY is included.
3. A BODY tag is required, or not, ignoring FRAMESET For this discussion,

Jul 23 '05 #12

Harlan Messinger

"Howard Kaikow" <ka****@standards.com> wrote:

In case anyone's interested, here is the HTML, with real info replaced.
Could this really be strictly conforming HTML?

[snip]

Run it through the validator. http://validator.w3.org/.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

Jul 23 '05 #13

Neal

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:35:14 -0500, Howard Kaikow <ka****@standards.com>
wrote:

I've looked at that spec and it is not explicit enough stating what is
REQUIRED,

Gotta read it.

7.2. HTML 4.01 specifies three DTDs, so authors must include one of the
following document type declarations in their documents.

7.4.2. Every HTML document must have a TITLE element in the HEAD section.

And note that both 7.4.1. (HEAD) and 7.5.1. (BODY) are marked:

Start tag: optional, End tag: optional.

I can't quickly locate language which specifies some content, but clearly
you must have some for this documant to be of use anyhow, so it's moot.

Jul 23 '05 #14

Neal

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:05:24 -0500, Howard Kaikow <ka****@standards.com>
wrote:

In case anyone's interested, here is the HTML, with real info replaced.
Could this really be strictly conforming HTML?
There are two obvious flaws in this.

1) No doctype specified, the specs require one.

2) The content between the h2 and the pre is not contained in block-level
markup - as it stands it is directly in the implied body element, which is
not valid.

If you add what I do below, it should be valid.
------------------------------------------------
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<title>Billing status</title>
<h2>Usage shown for 11/2004</h2>
<p>
This only covers a single month, and does not take
into consideration any previous balance.
<br>
(the information displayed may not include any current connections
or connections terminating within the last 25 minutes)
</p>
<hr>
<pre>
Account: xxxxxx-yy
Edward Bagels
Edward Bagels
xx yyy zzzz
aaaaaa, bb 12345-6789
Home Phone: (000) 555-1212
FAX:
Billing contact: Edward Bagels
email: no****@ishome.biz
Discount: ggggg (20.0%)
Created: 87654321
Closed: not
Billing Method: email
Bill To: no****@ishome.biz
-----
T Name # Usage Level Price Total
I aaaaaaaaaa 229 162:36:17 Normal rr.ss tt.00
-ggggg
created 11111111 closed: not
-----
T Name Level Price Total
W ggggggg/aaaaaaaaaa Standard 0.00 0.00
-ggggg
www.aaaaaaaaaa.biz Alias q.00 h.00
created 22222222 closed: not
-----
T Domain Name Minimum Price Total
N aaaaaaaaaa.biz 0.00 0.00
-ggggg
created 33333333 closed: not
-----
Price: $ aa.bb
Discounts applied: $ v.bb
Minimum for accounts: $ rr.00
Total charges: $ rr.00
Note: usage information shown here may only be accurate as of
the most recent data gathering cycle, and does not include
credits, debits, etc.
This is not an invoice.
</pre>
<hr>
<p>

Jul 23 '05 #15

Steve Pugh

"Howard Kaikow" <ka****@standards.com> wrote:

0. A DOCTYPE tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1.
Yes.
1. An HTML tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1.
No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HTML
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
2. A HEAD tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1, but I recall seeing a statememnt somewhere that HEAD need not be
included if BODY is included.
No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HEAD
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
3. A BODY tag is required, or not, ignoring FRAMESET For this discussion,

No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-BODY
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional

Steve

Jul 23 '05 #16

Michael Winter

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:35:14 -0500, Howard Kaikow <ka****@standards.com>
wrote:

[snip]

I've looked at that spec and it is not explicit enough stating what is
REQUIRED,
Understanding what is required in HTML is more than just reading the prose
of the specification. You must also read and understand the document type
definition (DTD) that you intend to follow. The comments and attribute
lists have been omitted from the following DTD excerpts for reasons of
space.
The HTML element is defined by

<!ENTITY % html.content "HEAD, BODY">

<!ELEMENT HTML O O (%html.content;)>

That is, the HTML element *must* contain a HEAD element followed by a BODY
element, and the start and end tags of the HTML element are optional. So
the HTML element is required as it's the document root, but it's tags are
not.
The HEAD element:

<!ENTITY % head.content "TITLE & BASE?">
<!ENTITY % head.misc "SCRIPT|STYLE|META|LINK|OBJECT">

<!ELEMENT HEAD O O (%head.content;) +(%head.misc;)>

The HEAD element, which also has optional start and end tags, must contain
a TITLE element and may contain a BASE element. It may also contain one or
more elements defined by the head.misc entity.
The TITLE element:

<!ELEMENT TITLE - - (#PCDATA) -(%head.misc;)>

The TITLE element can only contain text (including character entities). It
must not contain any elements specified by the head.misc entity, and its
start and end tags are both required.
So far, that means a document (excluding the DOCTYPE) must, at the very
least, contain

<title></title>

The HTML and HEAD elements are still present (and are *always* present)
but they are inserted into the document implicitly.
The BODY element differs based on the DOCTYPE used. For Strict:

<!ENTITY % block
"P | %heading; | %list; | %preformatted; | DL | DIV | NOSCRIPT |
BLOCKQUOTE | FORM | HR | TABLE | FIELDSET | ADDRESS">

<!ELEMENT BODY O O (%block;|SCRIPT)+ +(INS|DEL)>

the BODY element *must* contain at least one element defined by the block
entity, or at least one SCRIPT element. It may also contain INS or DEL
elements, and like HTML and HEAD, its start and end tags are optional.
Again, that doesn't mean it's not there, it just means you don't have to
say its there: it will be assumed.

This brings the minimal example (excluding DOCTYPE) up to

<title></title>
<p>

[snip]
0. A DOCTYPE tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by
clause 7.1.
It's required by common sense, if nothing else. How can a document be
valid if you don't specify what criteria counts as valid?

I don't believe any part of the specification states "a document type
declaration MUST be included", though it hints at it in at least three
places. However, HTML is an application of SGML, and the SGML
specification may well state explicitly that one is required (I couldn't
say).
1. An HTML tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by
clause 7.1.
2. A HEAD tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1, but I recall seeing a statememnt somewhere that HEAD need not be
included if BODY is included.
3. A BODY tag is required, or not, ignoring FRAMESET For this discussion,

They are all required. The HTML element is required as its the root
element of the document, and the HEAD and BODY elements are required as
specified in the DTD (as I quoted above). What is not required are their
tags, which may or may not be included - it's your choice.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

Jul 23 '05 #17

Eric B. Bednarz

"Michael Winter" <M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> writes:

Howard Kaikow <ka****@standards.com> wrote: For a document to be valid, it must include a DOCTYPE
declaration. From section 7.2 - HTML version information:
'Version information' is an april fool's joke.

Here's another one:

<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsandbox.bednarz.nl%2Fsgml%2 Fhtml%2Fversion%2Finfo.html;ss=1;sp=1>

And so is section 7.2 in general:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=llct3t8fo6glv6040dqn5p120va5437ice%404 ax.com>
If you kindly take the time to look at

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod2>

you will notice that *all* SGML documents do have an SGML declaration
(since the lexical details of the application syntax must be known) as
well.

So where precisely in data files served as text/html is it?
That's right -- nowhere. It's miraculously implied.
You might wonder how that is. Simply speaking an SGML 'document' is an
abstract entity, and its components do not necessarily live in one
single physical entity.

Once you've been there, the need of a doctype declaration (or, for the
big picture, the prolog) in the same physical entity as the document
instance set starts fading. If an application knows what to expect, it
can also know the whereabouts of the stuff that is basically always the
same (you might say not all external declaration subsets of W3C HTML are
the same -- that's bloody right, and neither are the SGML declarations,
nudge nudge, wink wink).
Now think again about 'document', 'valid' and 'include'.
On a side note,
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod110>
will help understanding that
<!DOCTYPE html>
is a 'correct' and 'complete' document type declaration.
There's little need to worry about any of that since nobody takes
SGMLised HTML seriously. The W3C acknowledged that fact by having
another try with XMLised HTML.

That person is wrong.

We really don't know that. :)
But then, it's probably just that it is raining outside.
Cheers
--
| ) PiÃ¹ Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

Jul 23 '05 #18

Neal

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:32:29 GMT, Michael Winter
<M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote:

I don't believe any part of the specification states "a document type
declaration MUST be included"
7.2. "HTML 4.01 specifies three DTDs, so authors must include one of the
following document type declarations in their documents."

1. An HTML tag is required, or not....
2. A HEAD tag is required, or not....
3. A BODY tag is required, or not...

They are all required.

Well, as stated, Howard is correct, the tags are not required. The
elements exist whether you use the tags or not.
The HTML element is required as its the root element of the document,
and the HEAD and BODY elements are required as specified in the DTD (as
I quoted above). What is not required are their tags, which may or may
not be included - it's your choice.

I'd simply add that if you're using any script elements it's smart to
explicitly put it in the head or body, as your script requires, by
delimiting at least the body element with the tags.

So this leaves the following as required parts of an HTML document.

1) Doctype
2) Title element, explicitly marked with tags
3) Content within block-level markup, explicitly marked with tags

The html element, head element and body element exist without explicitly
setting the tags.

Jul 23 '05 #19

Michael Winter

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:50:50 -0500, Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:32:29 GMT, Michael Winter
<M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote:
I don't believe any part of the specification states "a document type
declaration MUST be included"

7.2. "HTML 4.01 specifies three DTDs, so authors must include one of the
following document type declarations in their documents."

Odd. I did read that sentence.

1. An HTML tag is required, or not....
2. A HEAD tag is required, or not....
3. A BODY tag is required, or not...

They are all required.

Well, as stated, Howard is correct, the tags are not required. The
elements exist whether you use the tags or not.

By "they", I was refering to the elements themselves. I should have
phrased that sentence better.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

Jul 23 '05 #20

Michael Winter

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:46:34 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:

[snip]

Once you've been there, the need of a doctype declaration (or, for the
big picture, the prolog) in the same physical entity as the document
instance set starts fading. If an application knows what to expect, it
can also know the whereabouts of the stuff that is basically always the
same [...].

I'm not arguing that from a practical sense a DOCTYPE declaration is
necessary. If that were true, most of the documents on the Web would be
unusable. I was simply restating what the HTML specification sets out. If
you know that ISO 8879 disagrees, fair enough. You'll also have me at a
disadvantage as I've never read the SGML standard and I'm not paying £100
for the priviledge.

Regardless of the actual necessity, an author should still include a
DOCTYPE due to the effect one has upon treatment of the document.

[snip]

As my own aside, if the HTML specification is so incorrect on this matter,
why hasn't it been updated in the last five years?

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

Jul 23 '05 #21

Daniel R. Tobias

Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<op**************@news.individual.net>...

2) The content between the h2 and the pre is not contained in block-level
markup - as it stands it is directly in the implied body element, which is
not valid.

This would be valid in Transitional HTML, I believe, and since no
DOCTYPE was included, it's anyone's guess which variant of HTML was
actually intended by the author.

--
Dan

Jul 23 '05 #22

Barbara de Zoete

On 4 Dec 2004 11:51:34 -0800, Daniel R. Tobias <da*@tobias.name> wrote:

Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<op**************@news.individual.net>...
2) The content between the h2 and the pre is not contained in
block-level
markup - as it stands it is directly in the implied body element, which
is
not valid.
This would be valid in Transitional HTML, I believe,

It is. From the dtd:

<!ELEMENT BODY O O (%flow;)* +(INS|DEL) -- document body -->
with <!ENTITY % flow "%block; | %inline;">
and since no
DOCTYPE was included, it's anyone's guess which variant of HTML was
actually intended by the author.

The validator at W3C usually guesses it's Transitional.

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

Jul 23 '05 #23

Eric B. Bednarz

"Michael Winter" <M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> writes:

You'll also
have me at a disadvantage as I've never read the SGML standard and
I'm not paying Â£100 for the priviledge.
I'll have almost anybody at that disadvantage.
FWIW you have an URI reference to a syntax BNF now, the archives of even
this NG itself (let alone comp.txt.sgml) are actually stuffed with clues
and notable citations of the accompanying normative text, and you might
even find a quality primer for free, e.g.
<http://www.isgmlug.org/sgmlhelp/g-index.htm>

If it helps, I didn't spend a hundred quid either, since I do not have
any particular interest in the matter. In the land of the blind the
one-eyed can become an authority overnight.
Regardless of the actual necessity, an author should still include a
DOCTYPE due to the effect one has upon treatment of the document.
For reasons I'm getting tired of parroting, 'the effect' can be a
convincing reason to do the opposite, especially regarding IE6. Most
certainly YMIATD.
As my own aside, if the HTML specification is so incorrect on this
matter, why hasn't it been updated in the last five years?

As Arjun repeated all so often there is only one error to be removed,
the 'normative reference to'.
--
| ) PiÃ¹ Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

Jul 23 '05 #24

Alan J. Flavell

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

If you kindly take the time to look at

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod2>

you will notice that *all* SGML documents do have an SGML declaration
(since the lexical details of the application syntax must be known) as
well.

So where precisely in data files served as text/html is it?
That's right -- nowhere. It's miraculously implied.

Good point. Anyone interested in these technical minutiae (not that
they have more than an iota of practical relevance to HTML as found in
the wild) might be interested in this URL that I bookmarked a while
back:

http://home.chello.no/~mgrsby/sgmlintr/sgmldec.htm

Of course most of the things discussed there as configurable (concrete
syntax, document character set etc.) are already fixed for HTML.

cheers

Jul 23 '05 #25

Nick Kew

In article <op**************@news.individual.net>,
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes:

To the OP: your answer is 42.

OP did not ask for "valid" - he asked for "compliant", which I assume
suggests a functioning page. While the above is indeed "valid", it is
really of no practical value to the OP.

May I suggest you google the significance of the number 42 as an answer?

And as has now been pointed out in this thread, my example was not in
fact minimal. I used it because it's the minimal document I was confident
the HTML-oriented validators would accept in at least some mode, and
because it conforms with the letter of the W3C prose.

--
Nick Kew

Jul 23 '05 #26

Nick Kew

In article <co**********@pyrite.mv.net>,
"Howard Kaikow" <ka****@standards.com> writes:

In case anyone's interested, here is the HTML, with real info replaced.
Could this really be strictly conforming HTML?

HTML is, or was, a moving target. That looks at a glance like valid
HTML 2.0 under mid-1990s rules. It follows an early-1990s
(pre-Netscape) idiom.

Under todays rules - which have applied since about 1997-ish[1],
the absence of a DOCTYPE disqualifies it.

[1] Possibly earlier; I can't be arsed to check the history for when
the rule changed from "assume HTML2.0 in the absence of a DOCTYPE".

--
Nick Kew

Jul 23 '05 #27

Lachlan Hunt

Howard Kaikow wrote:

I am looking for a formal spec that states the REQUIREMENTS, not the
recommendations.
I ask because I've encountered HTML file that has no DOCTYPE, HTML or BODY
tags and the creator is insisting that such a file is conforming.

As has already been stated by everyone else, a DOCTYPE is required, but
see the index of elements [1] that indicates which tags are optional,
and also which elements are valid in each DOCTYPE. If in doubt,
validate the document. However, a valid document doesn't necessarily
conform to the specification since there are some things the validator
can't check.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web

Jul 23 '05 #28

Howard Kaikow

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:0f********************************@4ax.com...

"Howard Kaikow" <ka****@standards.com> wrote:
0. A DOCTYPE tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause7.1.

Yes.
1. An HTML tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1.

No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HTML
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
2. A HEAD tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
7.1, but I recall seeing a statememnt somewhere that HEAD need not be
included if BODY is included.

No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HEAD
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
3. A BODY tag is required, or not, ignoring FRAMESET For this discussion,

No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-BODY
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional

So, only the DOCTYPE is required.

Jul 23 '05 #29

Jan Roland Eriksson

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:35:07 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
<ka****@standards.com> wrote:

I am looking for a formal spec that states the REQUIREMENTS, not the
recommendations.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/intro.html>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/HTML4.decl>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/HTMLspecial.ent>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/HTMLsymbol.ent>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/HTMLlat1.ent>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd>

+ for safety, since I don't know exactly where you want to go...

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/HTML4.cat>
I ask because I've encountered HTML file that has no DOCTYPE, HTML
or BODY tags and the creator is insisting that such a file is
conforming.

It may very well be conforming to specs (but not necessarily to browser
behavior of course).

--
Rex

Jul 23 '05 #30

Eric B. Bednarz

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes:

http://home.chello.no/~mgrsby/sgmlintr/sgmldec.htm
A new one, for me, at least. Thanks.
Of course most of the things discussed there as configurable (concrete
syntax, document character set etc.) are already fixed for HTML.

The question always remains: just *how* are things supposed to be
'fixed'?

Here's another practical joke, originally in reply to a
'the-xhtml-doctype-requires-lower-case-tags' kind of query in an
'we-don't-discuss-this-here-but-you're-all-wrong-anyway' kind of mailing
list (know which I mean, nudge nudge, blink blink):

<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz.nl%2Fsgml%2Fxml%2Fxhtml%2Fucase.ht ml&ss=1>
--
| ) PiÃ¹ Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

Jul 23 '05 #31

Howard Kaikow

"Michael Winter" <M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote in message
news:opsihvi0j9x13kvk@atlantis...

As my own aside, if the HTML specification is so incorrect on this matter,
why hasn't it been updated in the last five years?

I've had a lot more experience than most readin/writing standards (see
http://www.standards.com/index.html?HowardKaikow and
http://www.standards.com/index.html?Standards) and I can fearlessky state
the following/

Most published standards, be they W3C or ISO or ANSO or ECMA are poorly
written and incorrect/ambiguous. Some are published even tho they contain
known egregious errors merely because ..., well, I won't go into te reasons.
From the perspective of a standards document, the HTML spec needs some work.

I haven't looked at the SGML standard in a while, my recollection is that
it was not written in a manner that would be easily understood by mere
mortals.

Jul 23 '05 #32

Howard Kaikow

Here's the output of the validator.
Markup Validation Service
v0.6.7
a.. Skip Navigation | Home
b.. About...
c.. News
d.. Docs
e.. Help & FAQ
f.. Feedback
g.. Link Checker
Jump To:
a.. Results
File: Billing status.htm
Encoding: utf-8
Doctype:
Errors: 4

No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.
I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the
valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is
impossible to reliably validate the document. I'm falling back to the
"UTF-8" encoding and will attempt to perform the validation, but this is
likely to fail for all non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

No DOCTYPE Found! Falling Back to HTML 4.01 Transitional
A DOCTYPE Declaration is mandatory for most current markup languages and
without one it is impossible to reliably validate this document. I am
falling back to "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and will attempt to validate the
document anyway, but this is very likely to produce spurious error messages
for most non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

This page is not Valid !
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
parser.

1.. Line 1, column 0: no document type declaration; will parse without
validation

<title>Billing status</title>

âo?

2.. Line 2, column 3: document type does not allow element "H2" here

<h2>Usage shown for 11/2004</h2>

The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed.
This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a
"style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two
elements that overlap (which is not allowed).

One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML
documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can
create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags
for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the
parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the
"body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported
error).

âo?

3.. Line 4, column 0: character data is not allowed here

This only covers a single month, and does not take

You have used character data somewhere it is not permitted to appear.
Mistakes that can cause this error include putting text directly in the body
of the document without wrapping it in a container element (such as a
<p>aragraph</p>) or forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters
such as "%" and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding
quotes).

âo?

4.. Line 6, column 3: document type does not allow element "BR" here

<br>

âo?

Feedback: The W3C Validator Team
Date: 2004/07/21 10:24:06
Copyright Â© 1994-2004 W3CÂ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your
interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member
privacy statements.

Jul 23 '05 #33

Howard Kaikow

Jul 23 '05 #34

Howard Kaikow

Jul 23 '05 #35

Barbara de Zoete

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:38:02 -0500, Howard Kaikow <ka****@standards.com>
wrote:

Here's the output of the validator. Markup Validation Service

<snip >4kB of shit that should have been a link of some sort>

f**k you. a URL would have been more than sufficient. Some quoted text is
also nice so one would at least know why you put that blahblah of >4kB in
a post.

plonk
--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

Jul 23 '05 #36

Eric B. Bednarz

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> writes:

f**k you.
That's a generous but often overrated and not even trustworthy offer
within Usenet (ask brucie in case of any doubts).
plonk

That sounds kinky enough for me.
--
| ) PiÃ¹ Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

Jul 23 '05 #37

Barbara de Zoete

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 02:06:02 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> writes:
f**k you.

That's a generous but often overrated and not even trustworthy offer
within Usenet (ask brucie in case of any doubts).
plonk

That sounds kinky enough for me.

Sorry Eric. I just get mad at stupidity sometimes. That just happend. And
no, you cannot take me up on any supposed offer from previous posts in
this thread or any other thread. :-D

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

Jul 23 '05 #38

Steve Pugh

"Howard Kaikow" <ka****@standards.com> wrote:

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:0f********************************@4ax.com.. .
"Howard Kaikow" <ka****@standards.com> wrote:
>0. A DOCTYPE tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by
>clause 7.1.

Yes.
>1. An HTML tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
>7.1.

No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HTML
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
>2. A HEAD tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
>7.1, but I recall seeing a statememnt somewhere that HEAD need not be
>included if BODY is included.

No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HEAD
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
>3. A BODY tag is required, or not, ignoring FRAMESET For this discussion,

No. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-BODY
Start tag: optional, End tag: optional

So, only the DOCTYPE is required.

The doctype, the title and some content (and if the doctype is strict
then the content must be in a block level container). Everything else
is implied by the presence of these and hence does not need to be
explicitly included. That's what everyone in this thread has been
telling you.

Steve

Jul 23 '05 #39

Alan J. Flavell

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

syntax, document character set etc.) are already fixed for HTML.
The question always remains: just *how* are things supposed to be
'fixed'?

It's a logical puzzle, isn't it? Because the "SGML Declaration" is
supposed to be incorporated implicitly for HTML; but there are
different declarations for difference versions of HTML, and one only
knows what version of HTML is involved when one has seen the DOCTYPE.
But (in SGML terms) the DOCTYPE can't be interpreted until the
Declaration has been processed.
Here's another practical joke,

As you say, it's a nice joke...

all the best

Jul 23 '05 #40

Nick Kew

In article <m3************@email.bednarz.nl>,
Eric B. Bednarz <be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> writes:

Here's another practical joke, originally in reply to a
'the-xhtml-doctype-requires-lower-case-tags' kind of query in an
'we-don't-discuss-this-here-but-you're-all-wrong-anyway' kind of mailing
list (know which I mean, nudge nudge, blink blink):

<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz.nl%2Fsgml%2Fxml%2Fxhtml%2Fucase.ht ml&ss=1>

LOL - thanks for that! But why the comment (no problem viewing source here)?

You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)

--
Nick Kew

Jul 23 '05 #41

Jan Roland Eriksson

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:31:12 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
[...]

Here's another practical joke... <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz.nl%2Fsgml%2Fxml%2Fxhtml%2Fucase.ht ml&ss=1>

Ha! That's a good one, spot on :-)

--
Rex

Jul 23 '05 #42

Eric B. Bednarz

ni**@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew) writes:

Eric B. Bednarz <be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> writes:

<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz.nl%2Fsgml%2Fxml%2Fxhtml%2Fucase.ht ml&ss=1>

LOL - thanks for that! But why the comment (no problem viewing source here)?

Admittedly, my Mozilla installation is quite old; when I view source the
generic identifiers are lowercase. View source is generally bad, since
some kind of 'normalisation' appears already to have happened (also some
shorthand features are not displayed 'as is').

Of course that could be fixed in newer versions; I'll check that later.
--
| ) PiÃ¹ Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

Jul 23 '05 #43

Henri Sivonen

In article <nl************@hugin.webthing.com>,
ni**@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew) wrote:

You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)

I thought his remarks resembled more those of Arjun Ray than Hixie. :-)

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

Jul 23 '05 #44

Alan J. Flavell

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Nick Kew wrote:

You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)

Just in case our international readers are confused by this
initialism, Google suggests:
http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index...my_five_pounds

(they don't seem to have been able to get their charset right,
though).

Five pounds would have been a considerable sum of money when the
advertising stunt was introduced.
(...We now return you to our normal markup...)

Jul 23 '05 #45

Harlan Messinger

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 4 Dec 2004 11:51:34 -0800, Daniel R. Tobias <da*@tobias.name> wrote:
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<op**************@news.individual.net>...
2) The content between the h2 and the pre is not contained in
block-level
markup - as it stands it is directly in the implied body element, which
is
not valid.

This would be valid in Transitional HTML, I believe,

It is. From the dtd:

Granted. HOWEVER (and this makes a lot of sense, because I can't think
of how else it would work) when any block (the body or any other
block) contains both blocks *and* inline content, the browser imputes
an anonymous block to contain each stretch of the inline content. IMO
it's a good idea not to leave it to the browser how to block the
inline content, but rather to provide explicitly a containing block
for it.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

Jul 23 '05 #46

Nick Kew

In article <hs****************************@news.dnainternet.n et>,
Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi> writes:

You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)

I thought his remarks resembled more those of Arjun Ray than Hixie. :-)

Hmmm, yeah, you're probably right. But Hixie is the one with a track
record (that I'm aware of) of playing little games like that with the
W3C validator. Arjun's style is more examples that are valid by SGML
rules but get failed by the validator.

All three of them can give useful insights:-)

--
Nick Kew

Jul 23 '05 #47

Jan Roland Eriksson

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:37:12 +0000, ni**@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew)
wrote:

In article <hs****************************@news.dnainternet.n et>,
Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi> writes:
You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)
I thought his remarks resembled more those of Arjun Ray than Hixie. :-)
Hmmm, yeah, you're probably right.
Seems to me that this is unfair to Eric. He is his own entity that goes
on to show that he has a much deeper knowledge of the foundation of
markup than what the average usenauts in this NG usually presents as
their line of credit.

Eric is definitely not Arjun. I may be one of very few regulars here
that have had the honor to meet Arjun in person (I have photos to prove
it even :-) and I can say at least that Arjun is not a Jazz musician.
But Hixie is the one with a track record...

Na! Why would Hixie put up a Jazz music site on a Dutch server? And the
photo on the main page has absolutely no resemblance to what I know that
Hixie looks like.

No one claims five pounds just yet, Ok ;-)

--
Rex

Jul 23 '05 #48

Jan Roland Eriksson

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:46:34 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:

[...]

'Version information' is an april fool's joke.
[...]
If you kindly take the time to look at

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod2>

you will notice that *all* SGML documents do have an SGML declaration
(since the lexical details of the application syntax must be known) as
well.
[...]
Once you've been there, the need of a doctype declaration (or, for the
big picture, the prolog) in the same physical entity as the document
instance set starts fading...
You guys out there; print this out and pin it up on your wall for future
reference.
Now think again about 'document', 'valid' and 'include'.

It's not like it has not been addressed before; Arjun went to great
length trying to explain the same, but usually ended up with "death
ears" in response.

--
Rex

Jul 23 '05 #49

Eric B. Bednarz

Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> writes:

It's not like it has not been addressed before; Arjun went to great
length trying to explain the same, but usually ended up with "death
ears" in response.

I _*/beg/*_ to differ.
--
| ) PiÃ¹ Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

Jul 23 '05 #50

Similar topics