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.

[Nick Kew]

In article <ou********************************@4ax.com>,
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.

Arjun did indeed explain rather more of SGML than my poor little brain
can grasp. But Eric seems to me to be making much more of an effort to
make it accessible to those of us whose understanding of it is limited
to (for want of a better description) a WWW level.

--
Nick Kew

[Arjun Ray]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:37:12 +0000, Nick Kew wrote:

Arjun's style is more examples that are valid by SGML rules
but get failed by the validator.

I note, however, that this one still gets through.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ss=1&verbose=1

%html.content, anyone?

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <ou********************************@4ax.com>,
Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:

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, for one, appreciate the explanations about how things work in SGML.
However, I don't think it is useful to pretend that SGML processing is
taking place when browsers access text/html content. In practice, the
intricacies of SGML are not that relevant to text/html authoring.

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

[Arjun Ray]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:46:34 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

'Version information' is an april fool's joke. [...] And so is
section 7.2 in general:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=llct3t8fo6glv6040dqn5p120va5437ice%404 ax.com>
Google's new interface - redirecting references to individual articles to
the top of the entire thread and leaving Message-IDs out to boot - is
bloody awful.

You're citing article #17 in the thread, but #19 really goes with it (and
is perhaps more relevant to this thread.)
Now think again about 'document', 'valid' and 'include'.

Right. We went through the same rigmarole yet again with the XHTML spec
"requiring" doctype declarations.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Jan/0066.html

(Look for Eliot Kimber's posts - great stuff.)

[Eric B. Bednarz]

"Arjun Ray" <ar**@nmds.com.invalid> writes:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:46:34 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=llct3t8fo6glv6040dqn5p120va5437ice%404 ax.com>

Google's new interface - redirecting references to individual articles to
the top of the entire thread and leaving Message-IDs out to boot - is
bloody awful.

That sounds bloody familiar. :)
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/msg/c7433ddc10095021>
You're citing article #17 in the thread, but #19 really goes with it (and
is perhaps more relevant to this thread.)
Right; that was actually my intention, no idea how I managed to
m(ess|ix) *that* up.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Jan/0066.html

(Look for Eliot Kimber's posts - great stuff.)

No need to, BTDT ;)
--
| ) Più Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/