Aside from namespace issues, validation deals principally with
well-formedness, as far as I'm aware.
If someone really believes the W3C is of no concern to people focused on
building well-formed documents, they should tell us what definition of
well-formed they are using. Otherwise this thread will quickly become a
torrent of pointless opinion soup.
Regards,
Barney
Katrina wrote:
Does the W3C validation mention
well-formedness? No.
But since the definition of valid includes well-formed, well-formed
documents should not validate.
Please do not quote Wikipedia, when the W3C sets authoritative
documentation.
The point with the Wikipedia was to show that it wasn't just me that
interpreted the W3C documentation in that manner.
What do W3C say about well-formed, nothing I expect?
Since well-formed applies to their standards, quite a lot I would imagine.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-well-formed
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#wellformed
Kat
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
