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

Re: XHTML validation bug (false pass)

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:54:31 -0800
Message-ID: <38C3FEE7.BBC4680C@pacbell.net>
To: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:22:54AM -0500, David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > It should at least be telling them that any conformant XML tool will
> > refuse to even _read_ the document.  As it is, it's giving them a W3C
> > stamp of approval -- wrong answer!
> 
> That doesn't seem good, indeed. I thought SP's XML limitations
> sounded like obscure things that wouldn't come up much in
> practice, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Nope.  I'd actually make that clearer in the warning that you're now
providing -- the little footnote does make it sound like they're quite
obscure, but it should become explicit that the consequence is that it
may accept documents that any XML tool _must_ reject completely.


> I guess I'll have to have a look at expat or something else as a
> replacement.

Expat doesn't validate.  Neither does it normally read external
entities, though that's tweakable (as I understand).

The quick fix would be to use Expat to detect well formedness bugs
before you hand this off to your existing validator.  (Or maybe after,
when it turns out to be XHTML text.  I don't know how the current W3C
validator is structured.) 

A longer term fix is to use a real validating XML parser.  The ones
I'd have any reason to trust lately are all written in Java, though
some C/C++ ones are starting to crop up.

- Dave
Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 13:54:37 GMT

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