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

HTML Validators

From: Bruce Weese <BWeese@mcctoronto.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:14:40 -0500 (EST)
TO: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001bf8547$4867d600$47890dd8@MCCT.mcctoronto.com>
I am extremely frustrated. I find your tool extremely useful for validating
HTML; however, I am experiencing some problem with some of your
descriptions.

MINE: "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"
YOURS FROM YOUR RETURNED PAGE: "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
The only difference I can see are the capitals. Is this important?

MINE: <head>
YOUR COMMENT: Error: element "HEAD" undefined
I have never seen a head defined as anything other than <head> or <HEAD>.
Why is this an error?

MINE: <script LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
YOUR COMMENT: Error: there is no attribute "LANGUAGE"
Is JavaScript not the language attribute? By the way it also indicated that
script was undefined? Does not LANGUAGE="JavaScript" not define the script?


The list I have goes on and on. Instead of just saying what is wrong. Would
it not make sense to offer suggestions as to what would make it right?


Is it also necessary for the validator to be so pedantic about some of the
unnecessary closing tags for codes. For example </br> and </p> </meta> etc.

Can you not offer a kindler, gentler option that is not quite as pedantic
and offer a compatibility chart between major browsers?

These things would be very helpful, particularly for me who develops
webpages for charities that have no funds to purchase a wysiwyg software
other than Netscape Composer. As you know Composer is not the least bit
interested in being compatible with IE so I need some way to continue to use
this tool and at the same time work around its drawbacks.

Thanks for any assistance you can offer.

Bruce Weese
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 15:16:18 GMT

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