Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Quite interesting, but one thing confuses me: no HTML 4.01 Strict?
Only 50 pages used HTML 4.01 Strict (of those 7 were valid).
That's probably because when most people make a move to Strict,
they also move to XHTML.
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
This article states:
| Character encodings
|
| 111 pages had no encoding specified in HTML. Of course not a
| requirement, but belongs to a good style.
Wrong. It is a requirement to specify the character encoding correctly.
It would be useful if your statistics indicated not only what encodings
were used, but whether they were specified in HTTP headers, the meta
element, the XML declaration or a combination of them, incl. how many did
so for each MIME type and how many had conflicting values.
What I meant was - it's not a requirement to specify character encoding
in HTML by using the meta element.
My methodology/script had some shortcomings (which I'll hope to improve
in future) and one of them was, that encoding-information was only
searched from meta-elements.
Lachlan Hunt also wrote:
Regarding the list of DOCTYPEs, it would be useful if you indicated which
HTML ones included the System Identifier so that it is possible to
determine which ones trigger standards mode, almost standards mode or
quirks mode. For example, in Mozilla, HTML 4.01 Transitional will
trigger
quirks mode without the SI and almost standards mode with the SI.
And that's another shortcoming - quite little information was gathered
about
the doctypes, but thanks for pointing this out, I'll hope to improve...
And thanks for the feedback.
--
Rene Saarsoo
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
