RE: W3C Validation

At 09:31 AM 2/14/01 -0600, jtrimble(at)vartec.net wrote:
>I was reading Elizabeth Castro's HTML 4 from Peachpit Press, which I have
>seen recommended on this list, and she says that she no longer recommends
>using *any* DTD.

They better change the name of the book to *Some HTML-like Stuff.*

How can they *teach* a certain type of HTML without using a doc type 
definition??

I know web sites will work without a dtd, but if you are /teaching/ a 
certain level of html, like HTML 4, then I think some students should get a 
refund.

When I first read this, I was mad. How can a teacher teach a certain *type* 
of HTML /without/ using the directions?? Or, publish a how-to book without 
consideration of the source?

IMO, if you're /not/ teaching HTML 4, then you can elect to use a dtd or 
not -- it's up to you. However, with some of the new techniques and 
technologies on the horizon, I still believe it's a good habit. Perhaps it 
won't make a bit of difference in how your page displays today, but will 
that be true next month? Next year? And, how much time do you want to spend 
*fixing*??

FWIW,
Tamara

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA