On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, William Lindley wrote:

>   Patrick> This doesn't look like valid html... which
>   Patrick> I'm sure you knew. There isn't a proper
>   Patrick> "<!DOCTYPE" string. That's all I noticed.
> 
> According to my O'Reilly "HTML: The Definitive Guide," --
> 
>   "Almost no one precedes their HTML documents with the SGML
>   doctype command. Because of the confusion of versions and
>   standards, we don't recommend that you include the prefix
>   with your HTML documents either."
> 
> >From everything I've read, over the years, my impression is you're best
> off omitting <!DOCTYPE... for HTML documents.

Interesting... and all the time I've spent validating my web pages over at 
w3c.org implied to me that it was/is important. Not that the page looked 
any different to me with or without the <!DOCTYPE declarations, but my 
pages "validate" when using the DTD, etc.
I realize that my response could be construed as sarcastic, it's not meant 
to be. It's just that there are SOOOO many different things to take into 
consideration, and not having the O'Reilly book you reference, I've been 
*trying* to code the best I can for w3c standards as well as accesibility 
(although some of the 'problems' raised by accesibility validators 
confuses me- no the color of the text is significant, yes the images are 
important, etc.)


> 
> \\/
> http://www.wlindley.com
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> 

-- 
Patrick Fleming, EA
http://myhdvest.com/patrickfleming
Licensed to represent taxpayers
before Exam, Appeals, and Conference 
divisions of the IRS