In article <e5rtl7$atf$1$8300dec7@n...>,
 Jack <mrdemeanour@n...> wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606031014410.24002@p...>,
> >  "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@p...> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jukka is going a bit far at the point where he says:
> >> 
> >> |the HTML 4.01 specification requires that one of three specific 
> >> |DOCTYPE declarations be used ...
> >> 
> >> - since this would appear to rule out ISO HTML as being a bona fide
> >>  kind of HTML,
> > 
> > I think it is quite appropriate to claim that ISO HTML is not 
> > conforming HTML *4.01*.
> > 
> Would you care to expand on this apparently rather odd statement?

The specs make incompatible requirements about the doctype, which means 
conformance to the specs is mutually exclusive.

> As far as I am aware, ISO HTML is essentially a restatement of W3C HTML
> 4.01, with certain recommendations transformed into requirements, and
> certain deprecations transformed into exclusions. Apart from that, the
> recommended DTD declaration is different; but the exact DTD to be
> declared is not a requirement of W3C HTML 4.01 anyway.

But Jukka Korpela pointed out in the quoted part that W3C HTML 4.01 does 
have a requirement of particular doctypes.

(Whether these requirements should be considered bogus or not is another 
matter.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@i...
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html