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

Re: Validator option suggestion

From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:08:17 +0100
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: "Patrick D. F. Ion" <ion@ams.org>
Message-ID: <20001102103525-r01010600-5564ce0c@>
On 01.11.00 at 20:47, Patrick  D. F. Ion <ion@ams.org> wrote:

>At 6:21 PM -0500 11/1/00, Hugo Haas wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 01, 2000, Patrick D. F. Ion wrote:
>>>The Validator is a fine service, and I'm sure I should use it more often
>>>than I do. 
>>I guess that you are talking about the link checker[1].
>Yes.  I think of it as an option in the Validator service. Since the files
>are already all valid HTML 4.01, returning that happy news from the
>validation option, I'm perhaps less conscious of its basic function.

Are you using the form at <URL:http://validator.w3.org/> or the one at

It sounds as if you are using the W3C HTML Validation Service to check the
validity of your HTML and you are seeing errors of the type "Sorry I cannot
validate this document because you used a SYSTEM identifier instead of a
PUBLIC one" and that you have supplied a relative URI in the DOCTYPE
declaration. e.g.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"

... instead of ...

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"

But Hugo is responding in context of the W3C Link Checker -- which checks
that you have no dead links in your document -- and a document that is only
available from inside a limited domain which will return the HTTP 1.1 "401
Unauthorized" status code
when the link checker attempts to fetch it.
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2000 04:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:28 UTC