Petko Yotov wrote: > In that case (same page validates with another skin) the skin uses a wrong > DOCTYPE. And could be fixed by using another DOCTYPE. Sure -- we could change all skins to use non-strict doctypes. Even then though it's possible to invalidate the skin by simply throwing in a frameset, or using some markup that causes the doctype to fail.
> What are the benefits > of advertizing that your skin is "XHTML Strict" if the page XHTML is not > strictly correct? Again, the *skin* might specify the use of XHTML Strict, but page authors may choose to use whatever markup they wish -- valid XHTMLStrict or otherwise. A skin cannot control that. The implication of what you're saying is that all skins must then be defined using non-strict. >>> I'll be happy to help authors fix their recipes if they are unable or >>> unwilling to do it, or disable on pmwiki.org those demos that fail to >>> validate. >> With respect to skins, I think this is a rather ridiculous statement, >> given that it is possible for the content of a web page to cause page to >> be invalid for a given skin. > > If another skin, e.g. the default one, produces valid HTML with the same > page, > then it is possible and the "given" skin should be fixed. Again, you seem to be simply ignoring the fact that a page AUTHOR can cause validation to fail by using markup not in alignment with the skin doctype. So again, we'd have to define all skins to use non-strict -- I have no idea what benefit that buys us. _______________________________________________ pmwiki-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
