W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2000

Re: Validating XML on the Validator - Logo please?

From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:25:02 +0200
Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000829160333.02453e70@isis.tss.no>
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Cc: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
At 15:20 29.08.00, Sean Palmer wrote:
> >>Nothing! The URI I gave was just an example. Actually,
> >>I don't think it was Schema valid, but it was XML valid.
> >>Try http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/utilcomment.html instead.
> >
> >That's a dump of Dan's original page. Unlike your provided example, this
> >page validates. Is that in any way significant?
>
>Well, yes; it points out that the validator doesn't validate the Schema.

No. It points out that it barfs on a page you say is probably invalid 
anyway and passes on two pages you say are supposed to pass. I'm fully 
aware that I'm missing something here, but I have no clue what that is. :-|


>The XML logo to be displayed when we validate our XML pages

As I said, I have no idea why Gerald doesn't use that "Valid XML" image 
that he's got sitting around. I'm sure there's something... (feel free to 
jump in any time here, Gerald! ;D).


>Some cross over between the validator and XSV

This would imply directly groking XML Schemas, no?


>What exactly is the status of the Validator at w3.org - will you be able to
>validate XHTML Families on it once modularization come into effect? This is
>a big problem you guys are going to have to tackle!

Well, first of all, I'm not affiliated the Validator or the W3C so I'm not 
in any position to answer that. Second, I'm going to go right ahead and do 
that anyway. :-)

I'm sure the W3C's Validation Service will support "XHTML Spec of the Week" 
in some form at some point. If I ever figure out what XHTML Families 
actually _are_ I might even venture an educated guess at how and when. 
Right now I'm busy reading the Incredible Vanishing XML 1.0 Second Ed. 
spec. (what's the deal with that BTW? Anyone...?), but I'll make a point of 
looking at the XHTML Families stuff (it's the modularization spec you're 
talking about, right?) and see if it's simple enough that I can whip up a 
patch for it (probably not, given that I'm having trouble keeping awake 
through the third page of the XML Recommendation (and this from someone who 
read the HTML 4.0 REC cover to cover in one sitting!)).

A better answer will have to wait for the official word from Gerald/W3C.


>cf http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/extxhtml/, http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/exp/

Yes, those both validate. Shouldn't they?

Am I missing something really obvious here? Everyone off sniggering at me?
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2000 10:30:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:54 GMT