Posted by John Thingstad on 04/20/07 12:14

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:05:02 +0200, John Thingstad
<john.thingstad@chello.no> wrote:

>> My guess is some smartypants at Google thought it'd make good P.R.
>> to declare the document as XHTML instead of HTML, without realizing
>> that the document wasn't valid XHTML at all, and the DTD used was
>> totally inappropriate for this document. Does anybody know, from
>> eyeballing the entire WebPage source, which DOCTYPE/DTD
>> declaraction would be appropriate to make it almost pass
>> validation? I bet, with the correct DOCTYPE declaraction, there'd
>> be only fifty or a hundred validation errors, mostly the kind I
>> mentionned earlier which I discovered when testing my new parser.

Oh, should mention try the HTML 4.0 traditional stylesheet.


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

• Next in forum: Re: cellpadding and cellspacing problem
• Prev in forum: Re: Writing HTML parser wasn't as hard as I thought it'd be
• Thread view: Re: Writing HTML parser wasn't as hard as I thought it'd be

[Reply to this message]