- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:52:47 +0000
- To: Gordon Edwards <gordon451@westnet.net.au>
- CC: public-unicorn@w3.org, W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Mea culpa, Gordon : I did what I so often criticise in
others -- read most of your words, but ignored the key
one ("Unicorn"). Probably because I am unfamiliar with
the Unicorn validator, I simply assumed that it was the
normal W3C one, not even thinking that there might be
another. Sincere apologies.
** Phil.
--------
Gordon Edwards wrote:
> Hi Philip -
>
> I must apologise -- I didn't explain properly.
>
> The standard validator (http://validator.w3.org/check#) worked properly IMHO.
>
> However, the Unicorn has in the past picked up every error found by the
> "standard" plus others (eg: RSS). This time it failed utterly to check the
> XHTML. All previous times it always checked every aspect of the document.
> I used to use it as a "one-stop shop" for this reason.
>
> I also am troubled that Unicorn was able to validate a RSS feed it found in
> a<link rel> while totally ignoring the rest of the document -- but that
> may simply be due to my lack of familiarity with current web page technology.
>
> So I guess the question is, has Unicorn failed, or has it been altered?
>
> Gordon.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> East Victoria Park
> Western Australia
>
>
--
Not sent from my i-Pad, i-Phone, Blackberry, Blueberry, or any
such similar poseurs' toy, none of which would I be seen dead
with even if they came free with every packet of cornflakes.
Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 17:54:48 UTC