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

Re: XHTML Validation Page

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:55:48 +0000 (GMT)
To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20011030184823.R395-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

Apologies for posting this here, but mail to Gannon Dick
bounced (again - perhaps an address c/o Yahoo or Hotmail
might help).

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Gannon Dick wrote:

> (with attached XHTML 1.0 validator package based on MSXML)

Hi,

I've had a look at it now (this takes time, as I don't normally
have access to a Windows machine).  As a first impression, this
looks very nice indeed - thanks!

> 1) This page most useful when a persistant connection
> to the WWW is NOT available and when for speed you
> would like to skip validation for "production".

You mean because it validates offline?  Yes, that's a definite
advantage.

> 2) So, in addition to this, you'll need a local copy
> of the XHTML 1.0 specification or at least make a copy
> available on a server on the local network.  If you
> get "resource not found" errors it means the SYSTEM
> identifiers are pointing to the local copies.

Actually I got no response using your C:\ ... paths.
But changing them to relative paths "./(whatever)/..."
seems to fix that.  Do you know of any problems I might
create by making this change?

> The "validate" button simply validates a second time
> if the DTD declaration is present and the "null DTD"
> just requires a well formed XML document.   This
> default behavior leads to one (known) case of
> misinformation ... an XML document is said to be
> "validated" although there is no DTD declared for it.

Yes, I actually test-drove this before reading the above(!)
and made the same observation myself.  I'd like to figure
out a fix for this, to make a clear distinction between
well-formed XML and Valid XHTML.  I really wouldn't want
to be responsible for distributing a tool that at worst
describes arbitrary [well-formed] gibberish(!) as valid.
At the very least, a more cautious wording.

BTW: you didn't specify redistribution conditions.  Do you
propose it should be public domain, GPL, or any other such
license?  And of course I'll need to to add you to the Credits:
would an acknowledgement similar to Jim's be appropriate,
and if so where should the URL for you point to?

-- 
Nick Kew

Site Valet - the essential service for anyone with a website.
<URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 13:56:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:00 GMT