W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > December 2002

Re: bug in validator?

From: Alistair Turnbull <apt1002@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:11:13 +0000 (GMT)
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.44.0212061808300.15204-100000@green.csi.cam.ac.uk>


Just now I tried to send you the broken URL but I can't because you've
fixed the problem. There are now separate 'Validate URI' and 'Validate
File' buttons, where before there was only 'Validate Page'.

A perfectly satisfactory conclusion, really quickly. You're good!

	Alistair

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Terje Bless wrote:

> Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote:
>
> >I was inclined to ignore it at first ( "someone entered a URL in the
> >file upload box and got confused ..." ), but on rereading your post,
> >that seems unlikely.
>
> No, it seems clear that this is _not_ a user error. It's either an issue
> wirh Konq, our web pages, or the Validator code (see below).
>
>
> >Actually on reflection, this is probably down to the murky innards of
> >the validator, specifically the redirection from a POST to a GET URL.
> >Methinks it's time to thwack Terje about that one!
>
> This isn't due to the GET->POST thing; it actually looks like this stems
> from an ambiguity on the HTML 4.01 Recommendation and Konq 2.x implementing
> this slightly differently from other browsers.
>
> A file upload field that has no value may still be considered "successfull"
> and so may be submitted. When an uploaded file is present the Validator
> will prefer that over any submitted URI. And since the "file" Konq is
> submitting is zero-length, we, for obvious reasons, can't extract an
> encoding, hence the error message.
>
>
> Since this doesn't appear to be a particularly widespread issue I'm not
> certain to what extent we should compensate for it in the Validator. I'll
> have a look at this the next time I'm digging through that part of the
> code.
>
>
> Thanks for bringing up this issue Alistair! This is pretty subtle and I
> don't think we'd ever have stumbled on it by ourselves!
>
> --
> We've gotten to a point where a human-readable,  human-editable text format
> forstructured data has become a complex nightmare where somebody can safely
> say "As many threads on xml-dev have shown, text-based processing of XML is
> hazardous at best" and be perfectly valid in saying it.     -- Tom Bradford
>
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 13:11:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:05 GMT