€ (was: link check)

From: Frank Ellermann (Frank.Ellermann@t-online.de)
Date: Tue, Jul 03 2001

  • Next message: Martin Duerst: "Re: € (was: link check)" 

    Message-ID: <3B4195B8.7171@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:51:52 +0200
From: Frank Ellermann <Frank.Ellermann@t-online.de>
To: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>, Tim Bagot <tsb-w3-validator-0004@earth.li>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
CC: www-validator@w3.org
Subject: &#128; (was: link check)

Hi Terje, Tim, and Hugo...

thanks for your answers, now I'll know how to interpret
this kind of check result (and I even managed to create a
form doing this without further typing :-)

I hope you do like these problems, because here's my next
observation, now it's the XHTML-transitional-validator: 

Trying to find a workaround for &euro; and &fnof; with
my (very) old browser I now abuse &#128; and &#131; and
an explicit charset (instead of documenting the abuse).

The XHTML-check doesn't comment this practice.  Later I
needed the same hack in another document, but a bug in
my script generated a DOS-EOF character at the end (hex.
1A, remember ? :-)  Of course the validator does not
accept this... but it also complains about the 2nd of 2
&#128; and the 1st of 2 &#131; !?!

After removing the EOF-nonsense: *No errors found.  So
a single character can have strange side effects in
other parts of the checked document... intentionally ?

		Bye, Frank