Next message: rowe@excc.ex.ac.uk: "checklink --depth"
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:01:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Frank van Wensveen <frankvw@euronet.nl>
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <sem9bt8cbbbtks4h6kiq2ckcmv4d8bri35@4ax.com>
Subject: Bug in W3C HTML validator
I just lost an argument with someone who claimed that Doctor HTML was
a better validator than the W3C validator. Rather painful - he turned
out to be right. :-(
Doctor HTML (http://www2.imagiware.com/RxHTML/) found that one of my
pages was missing both a </TD> and a </TR> tag. I claimed that it was
wrong, since the W3C validator had OK'ed it. Unfortunately it turned
out that my page DID miss the aforementioned tags.
I have kept the incorrect page with the missing tags online so that
you may use it to reproduce the problem.
Incorrect page: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/tmp/incorrect.html
Corrected page: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/index2.html
As I said the first page is OK'ed by the W3C validator and marked
incorrect by Dr. HTML (and it does indeed miss tags) while the second
is OK by both validators. "Manual" syntax checks on both versions
confirm this.
Now I won't hold this loss of face I suffered agains you... :-)) But
I'd appreciate if somebody could look into this, since now I feel that
my rocksolid trust in the W3C validator was not completely warranted
after all. It *did* miss a few syntax errors, and nasty ones at that
(missing table tags can wreak havoc in Netscape Navigator especially).
Having said that... I'd like to express my thanks to all the people
who have contributed to, or are still contributing to, this wonderful
service.
Regards,
Frank
============================================
Email: frankvw@euronet.nl
Homepage: http://www.vanwensveen.nl
ICQ #: 13800170
============================================