Scott Sauyet [EMAIL-REMOVED]> wrote:
> I think the W3C has changed its ways now, and the doctypes on their
> site look more like [...]
Unfortunately they still haven't fixed it in the XHTML specification itself,
the scamps, so lots of people are still copying the wrong DOCTYPE. Bah!
Raymond Drainville [EMAIL-REMOVED]> wrote:
> <link rel="Stylesheet" type="text/css" href="print.css" media="Print">
> unrecognized media Print
This looks like a bug in the CSS validator, being inappropriately case-
sensitive. (In HTML 4, the media attribute is CI.) You might want to report
this to the [EMAIL-REMOVED] list, but in the meantime it's probably
best just to use the lower-case 'print'.
> That's a good idea--but I checked, and the DOCTYPE indeed had a full URI:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
That's a longer URI than necessary - '2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126' can be
replaced with 'xhtml1'. My guess is the CSS validator doesn't know about
this valid but seldom-used variant of the URI.