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

Re: XHTML validation

From: Christian Smith <csmith@smith-family.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <auto-000000449013@barebones.com>
On Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at 07:02, JAMESICUS@aol.com wrote:

> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
> 
> >  Actually there is _no working XHTML validator out there now_. All that
> >  I have tried are seriously broken, and the one at W3C is by far 
> >  the worst.
> 
> I have been following your message threads with fascination and great 
> interest.  I ran your two test exemplars:
> 
> http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/mad.html
> 
> http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/testform.htm
> 
> through the W3C and  WDG  Validators and sure enough they passed muster with 
> the usual "Congratulations ..." message.

You really passed both of them thru the WDG validator and were told by the
WDG validator that they were valid? I just tried them and they both failed.

> A run through the  XHTML Validator 0.9  produced "element name mismatch" ... 
> ? for your file "mad.html" and "unconsumed element 'input' " ... ? for your 
> file "check.html".
> 
> What really surprised me was that both of your files passed muster 
> ("Congratulations" , etc.) when I ran them in  XML.com's  RUWF (are you well 
> formed) XML Syntax Checker:
> 
> http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/tools/ruwf/check.html

This (like the W3C validator) only tests for well-formedness. The
documents -are- well-formed, They just are not valid XHTML.

-- 
Cybernetic Humanoid Responsible for Infiltration and Sabotage
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 13:19:07 GMT

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