Re: CSS validator stricter than XML validator

From: Bertilo Wennergren (bertilow@bertilo.se.fm)
Date: Tue, May 15 2001

  • Next message: Bjoern Hoehrmann: "Re: 'html 2.0 transitional'?"

    Message-ID: <001f01c0dd77$829937e0$0c50800a@Standard>
    From: "Bertilo Wennergren" <bertilow@bertilo.se.fm>
    To: <www-validator@w3.org>
    Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:36:31 +0200
    Subject: Re: CSS validator stricter than XML validator
    
    Philippe Le Hegaret:
    
    > The following sentence in the same section is misleading:
    > [[
    >  It is also a fatal error if an XML entity contains no encoding declaration
    > and its content is not legal UTF-8 or UTF-16.
    > ]]
    > 
    > and should read:
    > 
    > "Unless an encoding is determined by a higher-level protocol, it is also a fatal
    > error if an XML entity contains no encoding declaration and its content is not
    > legal UTF-8 or UTF-16."
    
    I truely hope that interpretation is correct, since that could ease 
    a few compatibily issues with XHTML. As things stand now, I have to 
    include an xml declaration (with encoding info) in those of my XHTML 
    documents that are not in UTF-8. But that gives a few old browsers 
    a head ache. Now, if the new interpretation holds, I just have to 
    make sure the server sends out the correct charset info in the 
    http header, and I'm home free. But will the validators go along?
    
    -- 
    #################################################################
                           Bertilo Wennergren
                   <http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
                          <bertilow@bertilo.se.fm>
    #################################################################