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

Re: DTD 4.01 for ignoring & in CGI URL

From: JohnTNYC <johntnyc@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:42:47 -0400
Message-ID: <004301c1139e$e396dcc0$6401a8c0@nonamepc1973>
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, <www-validator@w3.org>
I think what Nester is saying is that his pages are generated on the fly by
interchange 4.6 (an ecommerce platform).  This product currently generates
non-encoded ampersands in URLs.  This bug is scheduled to be fixed and, in
fact, IS fixed in the development (unstable) build of 4.7 of this product,
which, for obvious stability reasons, Nester can't use.  What I think he
wanted, was to be able to patch a DTD *temporarily* so that he could be sure
everything else on his pages is correct and disregard the ampersands.  When
the new version of the platform he runs his site on is stable, he'll switch
to it and then ditch the temporary DTD.  Does that make sense to everyone
now?

It was just a temporary measure to make it easier for him to see if his
pages validated for everything except encoded ampersands easily until a new
version of his ecommerce platform fixes the bug in its URL generation
routines.  The ampersand encoding is beyond his control and I'm sure he
wasn't going to claim his pages as compliant until the software was fixed.
Right Nester?

Ok, move along people, nothing to see here...

John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
To: "Nestor Diaz" <nestor@engendro.com>; <www-validator@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: DTD 4.01 for ignoring & in CGI URL


At 11:14 AM -0500 2001/7/23, Nestor Diaz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have installed validator on my web site to check my pages to conform to
>the 4.01 standard ( i don't like to use w3 validator due to bandwith
>problems), however i will like to know if i somebody had made a patch for
>4.01 transitional dtd to not show an error where & is used as a separator
>for a URL, does it exist? i am not a experienced dtd programmer.

Why would you want to do this?  I mean, if you care about making your
HTML match the HTML 4.01 spec, why would you want to be able to allow
for non-compliant HTML by "patching" something which isn't broken?

(You actually can't, by the way, as this isn't something that's defined
in a DTD.  But my question is why you would WANT to.  I can't see the
point.)

--Kynn

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 13:41:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:59 GMT