W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > July 2001

Fwd: Re: CSS validator

From: Klaus Birkenbihl <Klaus.Birkenbihl@w3c.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:03:49 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: www-validator-css@w3.org
To whom it concerns and who ever is in charge to fix it:
this issue is still open. There is XHTML-code
on the english page - HTML on the german page.

Best regards, Klaus

>Dear all,
>I didn' intent to send the original mail to the list. I simply
>clicked "Philippe Le Hégaret & Sijtsche de Jong" at the bottom
>of the validator page and reached the list. OK, here we go on:
>>At 20:26 26.06.01 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>* Klaus Birkenbihl wrote:
>>>Hi Philippe,
>>>you offer to include
>>><p> <a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/"> <img style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px" src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss" alt="Valid CSS!"> </a> </p>
>>>into CSS validated docs. Unfortunately this is not valid XHTML.
>>>(Missing end tag for <img>)
>>Yes, and if there was <img /> it wouldn't fit for HTML documents. You
>>are suggesting to propose different code samples for XHTML and HTML
>I do not stick to an implementation my first concern is that the user
>is not trapped by the following sequence:
> * user calls CSS validation
> * CSS validation says "hey go and validate your html first"
> * user calls html validation
> * validator says "great your doc is correct XHTML"
> * user copies the "xhtml" validator logo into his document
> * user calls CSS validation
> * CSS says "great"
> * user copies CSS validator logo into his document
> * user publishes his document
>customer calls users page:
> * customer states: user claims to send valid xhtml
> * customer clicks the xhtml validator logo to check ...
> a) a bold disclaimer "don't use this without modification for XHTML"
>    might work - but is not very friendly to XHTML users
> b) different code samples would be easy and moderately friendly
> c) if a doctype can be found a customized code sample would be luxorious
>But since "c)" would still need "b)" for stand alone CSS-Files "b)" might be
>appropriate. This would also allow to conform to coding suggestions
>of the standard: (HTML tag should be upper case XHTML must be lower case).
>Meanwhile the english version is conformant (only) to XHTML while the
>german version supports (only) HTML. A bit more confusing ...
>Best regards, Klaus
>Btw. The CSS Validator (German Version) cannot verify itself:
>  Error
>  Target: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
>  Please, validate your XML document first!
>  Line 29
>  Column 17
>  An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0xfc) was found in the element
>    content of the document.
>Klaus Birkenbihl
>W3C Deutsches Büro

Klaus Birkenbihl
W3C Deutsches Büro
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 11:03:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:29 UTC