James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > > I dislike how [the W3C] retroactively change standards. I had most, > > if not all, of my public webpages W3C compliant. Then they changed > > the requirements, and then my proudly displaying compliant pages > > weren't. I was none too pleased. > > I'm curious about your bad experience. > Do you recall the circumstances?
I had made some HTML 2.0 and 3.x something compliant pages that pased the parser. Then, later, I ran them back through. They failed, because they did not have a now-required doctype header: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> > Was this something about withdrawn standards or proposals? > Maybe you're just saying the later standards are more complex? > Or seem harder to validate against? I am saying that they had standards for HTML 2. The valid pages would parse, and be good. Then, later, the standard for HTML2 would change. Previously compliant pages would now *fail*. Ex post facto-esque failure. Very unhappy. -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
