Re: W3C Validator vs Schneegans

Christoph Schneegans wrote:

 [302 page]
> Well, the response body is not a well-formed XML document.

Yeah, side effect of the redirection, forget it, you have
documented it, and if I didn't RTFM it's my problem.

> There's no "charset" parameter in the "Content-Type" header,
> no BOM and no XML declaration with an "encoding"

ACK, that (especially the latter) is what I meant:  I cannot
use your validator for XHTML 1.0 pages where I seriously want
neither UTF-8 nor US-ASCII.  Legacy browsers don't understand
<?xml ... ?> and would display it as garbage.  Shouting "read
C.9" doesn't help, these old browsers are as stubborn as I ;-)

 [fieldset]
> Only <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-Mixed> can produce
> '#PCDATA'

Oh, I didn't know this.  There's probably a reason for this
restriction.  And no optional start- / end-tags for a dummy
"after-legend-element" as a workaround, tough.

Thanks for the interesting links (but using bugzilla for real
discussions is a bit odd ;-)
                             Bye, Frank