W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > February 2006

RE: Parsing HREFs?

From: Bonnie Granat <bgranat@granatedit.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:07:44 -0500
To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001401c63566$403095a0$44a0ec42@GranatEditOne>

In fact, I DID see what the "error" was, but the occurrences of "&" are part
of a URL, and I am not going to change a Web site address. That's what is
absurd -- that it's parsing amazon.com's Web address. 


Bonnie Granat
http://www.GranatEdit.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka K. Korpela [mailto:jkorpela@cs.tut.fi] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:36 AM
> To: Bonnie Granat
> Cc: www-validator@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Parsing HREFs?
> 
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> 
> > Why is the W3C Validator checking a URL that's on 
> amazon.com for compliance
> > with XHTML?
> 
> It isn't. As a markup validator, it only checks a document 
> for conformance 
> to generic (SGML or) XML syntax and to the document type definition 
> specified.
> 
> > Info Line 69 column 332: entity was defined here.
> > ...21349962/103-1286336-8001448?v=glance&n=283155">reviews 
> </a>of this
> > book.</..
> 
> Please read the _error_ messages before that (misleading) "info line".
> It is unfortunate that a common error now spawns a total of 
> six messages 
> and, by a corollary of Wiio's law (Communication fails, except by 
> accident), people seem to concentrate on the least 
> informative and most 
> misleading of them. It does not seem to to help that the 
> _first_ of the 
> messages (a warning) explains the situation rather understandably and 
> refers to the same explanation as the validator's FAQ, namely
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp
> 
> Simply replace, in the entire document, any occurrence of "&", inside 
> quotation marks or elsewhere, by "&amp;", unless an "&" is already 
> part of an entity reference (like "&lt;") or a character reference
> ("&#123;") and meant to be understood that way.
> 
> (I think the validator's FAQ should have a self-contained explanation
> that contains the same information as the WDG FAQ entry, in a 
> more modern 
> style. A reference to Netscape 3.x, historically interesting as it 
> might be, does not make a document very convincing these days.)
> 
> -- 
> Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2006 15:08:09 GMT

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