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

Re: another doubt on validator ...

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:49:10 +0200
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <435551B6.2046@xyzzy.claranet.de>

Terje Bless wrote:

> I'm beginning to lean towards the position that the Validator
> should report only ?No errors found? ? possibly with things
> like the FPI and SI listed in the same way various HTTP
> header field values are reported ? since the ?helpful
> feature? seems to cause too much confusion in edge cases.

Livio's proposal was IMHO better, state what you have done:

If it was a "known" FPI ("known" from the validator's POV
whereever it's running) use it or a shorthand like XHTML 1.1.

If it was "unknown" or some other SI state this.  Finally if
nothing goes throw an error:  "I don't know any DTD for your"
$insert_DOCTYPE "- make sure that there are no typos and that
URLs used as system Id.s are absolute (f|ht)tp URLs".

> Pity. I liked that feature. :-(

Me too, but from the validator's POV public Id.s it doesn't
know are bogus or dubious at best.

                             Bye, Frank
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2005 19:53:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:20 GMT