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 08:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-validator@w3.org
cc: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
Message-ID: <auto-000000449014@barebones.com>
On Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at 13:53, bertilow@hem.passagen.se (Bertilo Wennergren) wrote:

> James Pickering:
> 
> > http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/mad.html
> 
> > http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/testform.htm
> 
> > [...]
> 
> > 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:
> 
> Well, they are well-formed (I believe). The second one should be
> valid too, although it's hard to be sure, since there are no
> validators to check them with.

Manually check the file against the XHTML DTD. You'll see that the FORM
element takes form.content as it content.

<!ELEMENT form %form.content;>

form.content is defined as 

<!ENTITY % form.content "(%block; | %misc;)*">

which means it takes zero or more elements of type block or misc. But,
INPUT is defined as being of type inline.forms

<!ENTITY % inline.forms "input | select | textarea | label | button">

so it is neither of type block nor type misc.

-- 
Cybernetic Humanoid Responsible for Infiltration and Sabotage
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 13:19:12 GMT

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