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

says it's valid, but it isn't even well-formed

From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:41:12 +0100
Message-ID: <3DF4C7A8.7090808@pinkjuice.com>
To: www-validator@w3.org

Hi,

this test case

   http://www.pinkjuice.com/temp/w3_validator/adjattrs.xhtml

##################################################
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html
   PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html
   xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
   xml:lang="en" lang="en">
   <head>
     <title></title>
   </head>
   <body>
     <h1 id="foo"class="bar"></h1>
   </body>
</html>
##################################################

is obviously not well-formed:

##################################################
xmllint adjattrs.xhtml --valid --noout --catalogs
adjattrs.xhtml:12: error: attributes construct error
     <h1 id="foo"class="bar"></h1>
                 ^
##################################################

##################################################
vdc adjattrs.xhtml
FPI is listed in catalog ... and the DTD is available locally.
Xerces:

Fatal Error at file C:\tmp\adjattrs.xhtml.646755, line 12, char 17
   Message: Expected whitespace

Errors occurred, no output available
##################################################

... but the W3C validator says it would be valid:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinkjuice.com%2Ftemp%2Fw3_validator%2Fadjattrs.xhtml

   "This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!"

I would prefer if the W3C validator interface would offer a choice of 
various up-to-date validators, eg libxml's xmllint etc.

Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 11:41:37 GMT

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