W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2005

Re: checklink:

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:47:12 +0100
To: Mindaugas <4mr.minj@gmail.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050823084712.GA16400@us-lot.org>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:54:50PM +0300, Mindaugas wrote:

> Ok, I don't know about your "validator knows html better than you" policy

That is not a policy, it is a quote that, more often then not[1], can
be applied to error reports received on this mailing list.

> but this BUG is getting on my nerves. Validator reports all pages with  
> javascript errornous. That's due to symonload() and symonunload()  
> functions which are created by BROWSER not me.

This seems unlikely. There are three ways to pass data to the
validator:

* Through a URL - where your browser gives the validator a URL, then
  the validator fetches the data from the webserver. There is no
  opportunity for a browser to modify the document here.

* Through file upload

* Through copy/paste into Direct Input

While, in theory, a browser could modify data in these latter two
options, its very very very unlikely (and I've never heard of anything
like this before).

Come to think of it, I've never heard of symonload or symonunload
functions either. Lets try Google.

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum91/1906.htm

Looks like you have some rather agressive software modifying your
document for you. Just ensure that the code is not in whatever data
you pass to the validator. This is probably most easily achieved by
checking it in a text editor that Norton isn't going to mess about
with before uploading it to your host, and then using URL input to the
validator.

> And your validator allways complains: "required attribute "TYPE" not
> specified" and "document type does not allow element "SCRIPT"
> here". If it's not validator's bug please tell me how to fix
> this. 

The validator references a good FAQ entry
<http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#faq-doctype> on the first
error, and tells you what values to use in the likely cases for the
other. I don't see what can really be added.

[1] At least in the past; with the release of the latest version of
the validator its become slightly harder to send an email to the list
without RTFMing and that seems to be changing things.

(I am subscribed to the mailing list, please respond there, not
directly to my mail account. Thank-you).

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 08:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:19 GMT