Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   HTML (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f31-html.html)
-   -   IBM doctype? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t154707-ibm-doctype.html)

Sean Jorden 09-07-2003 07:21 AM

IBM doctype?
 

Noticed IBM's site has this doctype:

<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.ibm.com/data/dtd/v11/ibmxhtml1-
transitional.dtd">

Are they trying to make their own web standards or something? Will browsers
actually read this DTD?

Toby A Inkster 09-07-2003 09:19 AM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
Sean Jorden wrote:

> <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.ibm.com/data/dtd/v11/ibmxhtml1-
> transitional.dtd">
>
> Are they trying to make their own web standards or something? Will browsers
> actually read this DTD?


Well, there is nothing to stop anyone making up their own doctypes.

e.g.
http://www.foad.org/~abigail/abigail.dtd
http://www.w3.org/Style/HTML40-plus-blink.dtd

You will notice that these DTDs tend to restrict themselves only to what
browsers can already do.

For instance, they don't try to introduce some element '<POTATOPICTURE>'
to insert a picture of a potato, because they know that no browsers will
recognise it.

On the other hand, they might add the '<BLINK>' element, because browsers
tend to already understand that.

Why do this?

Well, if you use '<BLINK>Important</BLINK>' in an HTML 4.0 document, you
will soon find yourself with an invalid document, because HTML 4.0 doesn't
have any element '<BLINK>'. However, if you change your DOCTYPE to the
W3C's HTML40-plus-blink.dtd, then '<BLINK>' is allowed, but your page is
still valid. (It's not valid HTML 4.0, but it's valid something!)

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS | mailto:tobyink@goddamn.co.uk | pgp:0x6A2A7D39
aim:inka80 | icq:6622880 | yahoo:tobyink | jabber:tai@jabber.linux.it
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/ | "You've got spam!"
playing://(nothing)

Leif K-Brooks 09-07-2003 06:45 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
Toby A Inkster wrote:

> Well, if you use '<BLINK>Important</BLINK>' in an HTML 4.0 document, you
> will soon find yourself with an invalid document, because HTML 4.0 doesn't
> have any element '<BLINK>'. However, if you change your DOCTYPE to the
> W3C's HTML40-plus-blink.dtd, then '<BLINK>' is allowed, but your page is
> still valid. (It's not valid HTML 4.0, but it's valid something!)


I've never understood that. Why is being valid so important if you
aren't validating against real standards?



Jukka K. Korpela 09-07-2003 07:00 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
Leif K-Brooks <eurleif.NoSpamPlease@ec.REMOVE.ritters.biz> wrote:

> Why is being valid so important if you
> aren't validating against real standards?


Being valid, in the SGML sense, means correspondence between the actual
markup and a formalized description of markup syntax. This was relevant
years before HTML, or the Web, was invented. In fact, it is far less
useful for HTML documents than one might expect, since hardly any browser
actually implements HTML as an SGML application.

By the way, there is only one real standard (an ISO standard) for HTML,
and (virtually) nobody uses it.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html



Joel Shepherd 09-07-2003 07:15 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
Leif K-Brooks wrote:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
>> Well, if you use '<BLINK>Important</BLINK>' in an HTML 4.0
>> document, you will soon find yourself with an invalid document,
>> because HTML 4.0 doesn't have any element '<BLINK>'. However, if
>> you change your DOCTYPE to the W3C's HTML40-plus-blink.dtd, then
>> '<BLINK>' is allowed, but your page is still valid. (It's not
>> valid HTML 4.0, but it's valid something!)

>
> I've never understood that. Why is being valid so important if you
> aren't validating against real standards?


Maybe you're validating to something more strict than the usual DTD
(e.g., maybe your DTD requires closing tags that are optional in the
"standard" DTD). Or maybe you've decided for your purposes that use of
a deprecated or non-standard element is acceptable, and you want to
silence that particular warning.

The latter is no better or worse than, say, ignoring a C-compiler
warning, or writing using sloppier-than-schoolbook grammar. While in
general neither one is an especially good idea, if you know what
you're doing there are situations where it's acceptable.

If you don't know what you're doing, then you've got bigger problems
than the validator or compiler can fix, though your grammar teacher
might give it a shot... ;-)

--
Joel.


Toby A Inkster 09-07-2003 08:12 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> By the way, there is only one real standard (an ISO standard) for HTML,
> and (virtually) nobody uses it.


Some things have been standardised by ISO, some by ECMA, some by ANSI. So
what? Just because something has "ISO" stamped on it, doesn't make it any
more standard than a W3C standard.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
playing://oasis/whats_the_story_morning_glory/02_roll_with_it.ogg

Dylan Parry 09-07-2003 08:45 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
Toby A Inkster wrote:

> Just because something has "ISO" stamped on it, doesn't make it any
> more standard than a W3C standard.


The W3C does not publish standards, it publishes "recommendations".

--
Dylan Parry - http://www.DylanParry.com

Now playing: Vaughan Williams, Serenade to Music from Fantasia
on Greensleeves


Leif K-Brooks 09-08-2003 05:57 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> The word "real" was relevant here. As long as you use the word "standard"
> informally, you can use it rather sloppily and call everyone's and his
> dog's specification, or even a mere industry practice, a "standard".
> But when you slap the word "real" in front of it, it is fair to require
> that you be able to specify the ISO, IEC, or ITU number, or at least the
> number of a national standard as issued by a national authorized standards
> body, such as ANSI. (In the Internet context, you might get away with it
> if you can specify the STD number assigned by the IESG, but those few
> "Internet standards" are not really real standards - not issued by an
> international standards body authorized by national members that have as
> official a status in their countries as any body can, depending on
> national situation.)


And what makes a country a country? I can call my house a country if I
want to. All that makes a country real is force. Do we really need guns
and bombs to create web standards now?



Matthias Gutfeldt 09-08-2003 09:04 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
"Jukka K. Korpela" schrieb:
>
> Leif K-Brooks <eurleif.NoSpamPlease@ec.REMOVE.ritters.biz> wrote:
>
> > And what makes a country a country? I can call my house a
> > country if I want to.

>
> Surely. And you can call a piece of bread an HTML program,


Jukka, I would like a slice of whole wheat HTML bread with my tag soup,
please :-).


Matthias

Nick Theodorakis 09-08-2003 11:53 PM

Re: IBM doctype?
 
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 23:04:07 +0200, Matthias Gutfeldt <worte@gmx.at>
wrote:

>"Jukka K. Korpela" schrieb:
>>
>> Leif K-Brooks <eurleif.NoSpamPlease@ec.REMOVE.ritters.biz> wrote:
>>
>> > And what makes a country a country? I can call my house a
>> > country if I want to.

>>
>> Surely. And you can call a piece of bread an HTML program,

>




>Jukka, I would like a slice of whole wheat HTML bread with my tag soup,
>please :-).


I've always thought that "tag soup" was a German-English pidgin word
for "soup of the day." ;-)

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
nicholas_theodorakis@urmc.rochester.edu


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.