W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-cvs@w3.org > July 2005

[Bug 1815] Line number shift when using doctype override

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:09:32 +0000
To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1DxFoy-0006DH-Oo@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1815


ot@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|link@pobox.com              |ot@w3.org
            Summary|DOCTYPE fallback possibly   |Line number shift when using
                   |invalid, and wrong errors   |doctype override
                   |coming up on override       |




------- Additional Comments From ot@w3.org  2005-07-26 03:09 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> The site does not have a DOCTYPE declaration, so it's technically not valid anyways.

Right.
 
> With the beta, if I do not override the DOCTYPE not being there, it gives a
> message saying it'll validate using HTML 4.01 Transitional as a fallback, but
> some of the errors that come up are valid for HTML 4.01 Transitional.

When using the fallback DTD, some errors regarding named entities were indeed wrong. This is being 
fixed (see e.g at the bottom of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2005Jul/0059.html )

>  The first error:
> Line 1, column 0: no document type declaration; implying "<!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM>"
> seems to make me think it is not using HTML 4.01 Transitional's DTD

It is using the fallback DTD. it's just the parser's jargon not being clear. The explanation that goes with 
it is supposed to clarify this.

> Line 96, column 18: there is no attribute "BACKGROUND" .
> That is a valid problem, BUT it's showing the wrong line and column.  The
> background attribute is actually on the previous line, line 95, at column 5.

Indeed, that's a bug I was not aware of. Cannot see anything similar in bugzilla either. Good catch. I am 
changing the title of this bug report to be this particular issue.


> One other things that is relatively minor:  I noticed the beta does not show
> number of errors like the production one does.  Is this because of the fact that
> the beta shows not only errors, but warnings and notices as well?

Mostly, yes. No-one in all the alpha, beta test periods asked to get it back, either. I am filing a separate 
enhancement request (Bug #1816) for it.
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 03:09:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:54:48 GMT