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

Re: Todo list (was: sgml-lib/REC-xhtml1-20000126/xhtml1-transitional.dtd)

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 04:35:14 +0100
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: frank.ellermann@t-online.de
Message-ID: <a01060007-1022-E76DEB3304DD11D7B52A00039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Frank Ellermann <f-e@hamburg.de> wrote:

>Terje Bless wrote (7 Aug 2002):
>
>>Support for XHTML 1.0 Second Edition is on the TODO list and will be
>>added as soon as we're able. :-)
>
>Thanks, I found it.  Maybe you're interested in some feedback for the
>new layout (just some first impressions):

Yes, very much! If you have any comments please do let us know!


>- My favourite browser is Netscape 3, therefore the internal
>  links don't work (missing <a name=...> for all id=...).  All
>  styles are of course silently ignored (incl. class="none").

The links will probably not work in Netscape 4.x either (at least it used
to have problems with anything but <a name=""></a>), but that doesn't
really worry me greatly. There are limits to how broken a browser can be
before I stop jumping through hoops for it; and Netscape 4.x has long since
passed that limit. Sorry.

It is unfortunate that this results in broken internal links for you of
course, but we have to draw the line somewhere.


>- "&" is _still_ recognized as separator for parameters, and in
>  fact that's how older browsers send form input to the server,
>  so please don't remove "&" completely before say 2020. ;-)

No, I don't think "&" as a parameter separator will go away any time soon.
In fact I expect we will not see a different separator until well after
XForms has become the norm and the XLink vs. HLink debate has died out.

The comment in the docs is refering to applications calling the Validator
"API", not to web browsers using the web interface.


>- It's difficult to revalidate a valid URL (e.g. to check if a
>  page declared as 1.0 transitional would also pass as strict,
>  basic, etc., or to see outline=1 resp. output=xml versions).
>  Please add a link to detailed.html on the valid result page.

The next version will give you an option to show "Verbose" output, which
should do what you want.


>- There's apparently no way to suppress option "show source".
>  I tried &ss=0 ;ss=0 &ss= ;ss= (but &sp=1 &sp=0 etc. work as
>  expected).

For invalid pages there is currently no way to turn off the Show Source
option. This may change in a future version. I've logged this request as
Bug #97 in our tracking system.


>- The selection of available doctypes includes "XHTML 1.1" and
>  "XHTML Basic 1.0".  How can I select e.g. "XHTML+MathML" if
>  not specified in the document ?  Adding &doctype=XHTML+MathML
>  to the parameters doesn't work, it results in a "Fatal Error:
>  No DOCTYPE specified".

The ;doctype= option takes as it's value an URL Encoded version of the FPI
for a given DTD. SO for XHTML+MathML you would need to use something like
"XHTML+1.1+plus+MathML+2.0", but note that this is not a supported method.

I've logged this as Bug #98 in our tracking system.



Thank you for the feedback on this!


-- 
Terje, you are a sick and twisted individual, and I
think I speak for all of us when I say, "Thank you!"

               -- John Gruber <gruber@barebones.com>
Received on Saturday, 30 November 2002 22:35:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:04 GMT