W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2004

Supporting the OL tag in XHTML Strict 1.0

From: Samuel A. Falvo II <sam.falvo@falvotech.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:21:19 -0700
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <200404151021.19664.sam.falvo@falvotech.com>

According to countless websites reported by Google, the OL tag is in the 
valid set of tags for XHTML strict 1.0.  However, my use of the OL tag 
in my website design reports a validation error.  I believe this to be a 
bug.  This issue is not reported in any online documentation directly or 
indirectly reachable by the Validation page.  Therefore, I have to 
assume that this is an oversight.

You can reproduce this bug by going to my website at 
http://www.falvotech.com and clicking on the "XHTML 1.0" button at the 
bottom of the page.  It will claim the following error as a result:

   1.  Line 67, column 6:  document type does not allow element "ol" 
here; missing one of "object", "ins", "del", "map", "button" start-tag

     <ol>
        ^

The relavent code is as follows:

 64:   <p>
  65:    Therefore, in an attempt to utterly thwart any continued spammer 
activity on my
  66:    site, I will be taking two steps:
  67:    <ol>
  68:     <li>
  69:      The first thing I'll be doing is replacing all instances of 
e-mail
  70:      addresses with images containing human readable text.  These
  71:      pictures prevent the spread of valuable e-mail information to
  72:      spam-bots, while conveying all the relavent details to the 
human
  73:      readership, which is my true audience anyway.
  74:     </li>
  75:     <li>
  76:      I will be establishing a spam-bot trap on the site, which 
generates
  77:      countless bogus e-mail addresses.  The idea is to load up a
  78:      spammer's e-mail list so heavily with bogus e-mail addresses 
that
  79:      either (a) they'll stop coming to my site at all, or (b) it'll
  80:      significantly reduce the value of the mailing lists they sell,
  81:      by causing a significant dilution of valid e-mail accounts.  
In both
  82:      cases, the spammer is very negatively affected.
  83:     </li>
  84:    </ol>
  85:   </p>

Thank you for your time.

--
Samuel A. Falvo II
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 13:36:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:13 GMT