W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2003

Re: validation in Opera

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:36:13 +0100
Message-ID: <15986.22877.977232.122629@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org

Also sprach Nick Kew:

 > >  1) lack of DOCTYPE in documents, and
 > >  2) lack of <meta http-equiv
 > > In the case of 1), the validator will refuse to process the document
 > > and the retuned page has no options for revalidation (which it has when
 > > the URL is sent). I think this problem could be improved if there was
 > > a way for us to tell the validator "please look for a DOCTYPE in what
 > > we send you, if you can't find any use HTML 4.01 transitional".
 > I tend to agree with you there.  Of course, it will still complain
 > about the missing doctype.
 > We can get this behaviour by adding a DOCTYPE HTML line to the
 > HTML catalogue file, causing OpenSP to infer <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM>
 > when it encounters an <HTML> root element.  That won't help when the
 > <html> element itself is missing, but that seems to be relatively
 > unusual these days, except in severely broken pages.

Yup. This fix seems very reasonable and I would be thankful if it can
be applied to the instance running on validator.w3.org

 > > 2) is slightly trickier. Most pages include this information in the
 > > HTTP header, but Opera does not pass this information along with the
 > > source. Is there a way for us to do so? One that would be overridden
 > > by the META tag, if found?
 > Surely that's a matter for you as browser developer to fix?

True, we can probably fix it if there is no option. I'd prefer not to
have to remember the Content-Type header for all documents, though.

              Håkon Wium Lie                          cto °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 17:37:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 17 August 2018 18:36:05 UTC