Having said all that Chris's solution of having extended and published the DTD is perfectly acceptable.
Yes, sorry...I wasn't questioning the validity of Chris' solution per se. I was just taking a step back to look at the bigger picture, beyond mere validation, to what it actually means to create your own DTD and how any effect is still dependent on legacy (well, if you consider xhtml 1.0 transitional and before as legacy) behaviour hardcoded into the UA so that it can cope with older code.
Extending a DTD to allow for deprecated elements/attributes is a working solution today, but is more akin, in my humble opinion, to those methods that rely on javascript to pepper a document with legacy code onload so that it passes validation but then - after the DOM has been manipulated - in effect turns into invalid code.
Not passing judgement, merely observing that if there were a strict browser out there, even a hand-rolled DTD allowing target="_blank" would not actually mean that the UA would understand your intentions...
Patrick _____________________________________________________ re�dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
