Bryan Newell <bryann at bryann.net> writes on 22 February 2004 at 23:33:55 -0600 > > >> And W3C's validator couldn't even parse your site: > > >> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbryann.net%2F > > > > > > Validators can't parse my site, because I generate all html "on the fly" > > > using cgi-bin executables. > > > > That doesn't matter; they simply make an http connection to the site > > and look at the content delivered. My dynamic sites validate fine > > (except when they don't, when I've got something screwed up). > > Interesting. I swear I tried validating it before, and it couldn't see the > html unless I saved it as a .html file first. Perhaps it was a different > validator, or perhaps I'm just forgetful. > > I see now, however, that you are correct; I tried running the link above, > and it errors out because there is no DOCTYPE declared on my page. > > I hadn't realized that was a fatal error... It certainly isn't fatal in any > of the browsers I've used. Is that only required so the validator knows HOW > to validate your html? Or are browsers also supposed to reject your page if > it doesn't have a DOCTYPE declared? > > Anyone know? I've never had a browser complain about lack of DOCTYPE, or character encoding. The validator is absolutely insistent on both, however. I don't know if it helps them validate, or if it's just a requirement in the spec that no browser enforces, however. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>