W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2001

Re: XHTML validator doesn't completely support Unicode

From: Peter K. Sheerin <pete@petesguide.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:35:24 -0700
Message-ID: <002e01c0d12f$02bb47b0$c429b7ac@cadencesheerin>
To: "Terje Bless" <link@tss.no>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
You know, it's amazing how much you can get done on 45-minute train ride
when you have a laptop that finally makes the "Instantly Available PC" a
reality.

Here is the address of my nascent browser test suite:
http://www.petesguide.com/WebStandards/tests/. I've been thinking about
creating this for a while, but your plea was enough to make me finally do
it.

These are different pages than the ones posted earlier, but specifically
designed to test the same things (and then some), without the superflous
content of the other pages.

Please let me know if you think these tests are useful, and if there are
other tests that would be helpful to have here.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Terje Bless" <link@tss.no>
To: <psheerin@cmp.com>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: XHTML validator doesn't completely support Unicode


> On 26.04.01 at 21:50, Peter Sheerin <psheerin@cmp.com> wrote:
>
> >Is it a known issue that the w3c validator doesn't properly handle
> >Unicode documents? I've got a page that validates to XHTML 1.0
> >Strict--until I put the Unicode byte-order mark character string at the
> >beginning of the file.
>
> Yes, it's a known limitation of the SGML Parser we use that it's b0rken
> when presented with a UNICODE Byte Order Mark. That similar problems exist
> for other parts of UNICODE is not particularly surprising. :-(
>
>
> >http://www.petesguide.com/style/index.html
> >http://www.petesguide.com/style/misunderstood.html
> >http://www.petesguide.com/style/peeves.html
>
> Are these URIs more or less permanent? (see below)
>
>
> >Is anyone working on more complete support of Unicode for the validator?
>
> Yes and no. It's on the TODO list, but it's been pushed back a bit by
other
> priorities. I'd like to use your pages as test cases, so I have some
> verification that it's /really/ been fixed when we try to fix it. Is there
> any chance those URIs will remain static?
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2001 00:37:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:58 GMT