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

should it say "validates as XHTML"?

From: Chris Sidi <sidi@angband.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:12:30 -0500 (EST)
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0002271740170.6335-100000@angband.org>
The validator says "Congratulations, this document validates as XHTML 1.0
Strict!" for this document [0]:

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
       "doesnt_exist.dtd"
   >
   <borkbork xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
     <foo bar="baz">
        Blah
        <fake noexist="true" />
     </foo>
   </borkbork>

That might be well-formed XML/XHTML, but I'm pretty sure it's not valid
XML/XHTML.  For one thing, according the XML Recommendation to be valid
the root element (borkbork) should be the same as the name following
!DOCTYPE (html) [1]. The XHTML Recommendation says:

  If the user agent claims to be a validating user agent, it must also
  validate documents against their referenced DTDs according to [XML]. [2]

So should the validator say instead something like "Congratulations, this
document is well-formed XHTML!  The validity was not checked however." ?

-Sidi (who just joined the mailing list and only started about XML and
XHTML recently, so I could be wrong)

[0] http://angband.org/~sidi/pub_tmp/xhtml/v3.html
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#vc-roottype
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#uaconf
Received on Sunday, 27 February 2000 18:12:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:53 GMT