From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18220 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2002 09:26:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18212 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 09:26:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2002 09:26:48 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17yUA3-0007t5-01 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 05:26:47 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17yU9u-0007kU-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 05:26:39 -0400 Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr ([213.228.0.169]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17yU9u-0007jX-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 05:26:38 -0400 Received: from imp1-2.free.fr (imp1-2.free.fr [213.228.0.151]) by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5489717F47; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:26:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by imp1-2.free.fr (Postfix, from userid 33) id 7557987343; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:26:32 +0200 (MEST) To: pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at Subject: Re: PATCH for Re: http://gcc.gnu.org Message-ID: <1033982792.3da15348695e9@imp.free.fr> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:03:00 -0000 From: vargenau@free.fr Cc: janis187@us.ibm.com, Joe.Buck@synopsys.com, gcc@gnu.org, vargenau@free.fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6 X-Originating-IP: 64.208.49.61 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00410.txt.bz2 >>Illegal DOCTYPE >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00822.html >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/2002-01/msg00551.html >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2002-01/msg00663.html > > > I fail to see the problem here. Does it complain because there are > comments before the DOCTYPE or is the DOCTYPE really an invalid/obsolete > one? > > Gerald In these three pages, the DOCTYPE used is that does not correspond to any current version of HTML from W3C. The official list of DOCTYPE's can be found at http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list >From this page: HTML 2.0 DTD HTML 3.2 DTD HTML 4.01 Strict, Transitional, Frameset XHTML 1.0 Strict, Transitional, Frameset XHTML 1.1 DTD Regards, -- Marc-Etienne Vargenau http://vargenau.free.fr Membre du Cercle généalogique norvillois http://www.cgnorvillois.org Mes données sont indexées sur Généanet http://www.geneanet.org