Re: DOCTYPE Statements --Oh Boy!!

Ted (et al),
as much as I hate to be so agreeable, I have to respect your
position/opinion. I KNOW it is not based on supposition or "fantasy".

However (I'll bet we knew that was coming :-)),

Ted said:

"Therefore, the minimum requirements for a "valid" HTML document that will
show in all browsers since dinosaurs is the following . . . "

Yikes Ted. By definition there is no such thing as a valid document with no
DTD. Don't take my word, submit ANY document from ANY site you choose to
the validator. If there is no DTD there is no validity. If there is no
validity, there is no stability and no (accurate) predictability.

Please, I didn't invent that last sentence. Argue with the W3 and the
browser manufacturers - they say that. The only "authority" I have ever run
across that doesn't agree with that are the majority of the WYSIWYG editor
manufacturers. You know, the same folks that advertise "pixel level
control" and "no need to know *any* HTML to build web pages".

Then Ted said: "Sorry Fuzzy, I beg to disagree. Granted there are one or
two other supposed features of a DOCTYPE statement but it's primary
"practical" use is to tell a Validator what "standard" to validate against."

1) Doctypes were a required part of the language before the first parser
(validator) was invented, or well . . . more accurately, probably, released
into the public domain.

2) I base my position/opinion on the fact that the specification for every
ratified version of HTML back to 1.0 labels the DTD statement as required (
http://www.w3.org ). Just about any tutorial you can find will describe the
~primary~ purpose of the DTD as being to identify the specific version of
HTML you are about to feed the browser so that it can render the following
markup properly ( http://www.hwg.org  and/or  http://www.w3.org ).

Now . . . in fairness . . . 

Yea, you are right. a **lot** of major sites, and a hundred zillion pages
have no DTD to be found, and ~most~ of them work just fine, ~usually~.

I guess by know, we all know my mind set: "most" and "usually" simply is
not good enough for me - or my customers (as a general rule).

So . . . all of you out there in list-land, please keep that in mind when
reading my (self proclaimed - fanatical) posts. If "most" and "usually" is
ok with you (and I am NOT saying that is bad!) simply overlook my ramblings
. . . on the other hand, if you have stepped of the deep end as I have and
it *really* matters whether your stuff works reliably and predictably 100%
of the time in 100% of the browsers . . . 

Follow the ratified specifications for the version of the language you are
writing to. If it is version 1.0 or later, the standard *does* label the
DTD statement as _required_ ( http://www.w3.org ).

Out of respect for Ted (and I guess, everyone else too) I'll drop this
issue and say no more publicly . . . you believe that right ;-)?

But list-land I want to say, in fairness . . . feel free to voice YOUR
position too, I won't ignore you, I'll respond privately. Like Ted, I have
been around long enough to realize the volatility in this issue and respect
just how easily and quickly this topic can turn into a flame war.

HTH,
Fuzzy.
__________________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION.  It comes bundled with the software.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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