Rob Crowther wrote:> On 02/08/2012 17:02, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>
>> I think that is an over-simplification, and one that is misleading
>> if it gets into the wrong hands.
>
> Not really, otherwise tricks like having a DOCTYPE without a DTD
> wouldn't work.
I respectfully disagree. My assertion was (shortened)
that if a page validates against the DTD given in
the DOCTYPE directive, then it is more likely to
be parsed and rendered correctly than if it does not.
This statement, as expressed, quite intentionally
makes no assertions about the probably behaviour of
a page in the absence of a DTD in the DOCTYPE.
> That page only refers to "The (X)HTML languages, for all versions up to
> XHTML 1.1".
Such languages are, I believe, the only (HTML) languages to yet be
afforded the status of full W3C recommendations. HTML 5 is still
in draft, and therefore I prefer not to offer any observations
on the probable behaviour of pages written to conform to the
current draft recommendation since that recommendation could
change at any time.
Philip Taylor
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
