W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Problem with validator

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:09:09 +0200
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <4616B6F5.2FB4@xyzzy.claranet.de>

David Dorward wrote:

>> It won't bark at the </p> without first reporting that something
>> is wrong at the <fieldset>.

> No, it will just tell you to use an object to make things alright
> instead, which is even more misleading since that usage is forbidden
> by prose.

Maybe the next version finds more errors, not only the simple stuff
expressed in the DTD, and creates better reports.  From my POV XHTML
is just a no nonsense variant of HTML.

> I have this thing called "a manual" and the ability to memorise the
> very, very small number of places where a block can contain only
> inline content.

Being a smart ass is fine, but if you're trying to figure out what
went wrong on a page not written by you it's not always good enough.
I found "<pre> within <p>" after some time, but there were more than
100 lines between the <p> and the </p>.

>> Of course it's served as text/html, it's designed to work with
>> "any" browser, almost a decade ago.

> Any browser that gets HTML 4.01 wrong in the first place. <sigh>

Is there any browser getting any version of HTML right ?  My tests
with </> so far all failed.  I've not tested the W3C browser.  With
my HTML 3.2 browser my interest in 4.01 is somewhat limited to stay
away from <del> or <tfoot>, and all other stuff that's not backwards
compatible.

>> Learning appendix C by heart was easy, my browser made sure that
>> I did.

> You have a browser that complains when you don't use an XML prolog
> with a non-UTF-8/16 encoded XHTML as text/html document, no matter
> what the HTTP headers say?

No, I don't use <?xml > at all because my browser happily displays it
as garbage (C.1).  Okay, I added it to two windows-1252 pages later,
where I needed 0x80 to get an Euro working with any browser.  Anything
else is ASCII, if XML processors "think" it's UTF-8 they can carry on.

> And also flags up stylesheets that aren't referenced by an XML
> processing instruction?

No CSS on my pages, don't worry.  As long as I find no explanation
what I should do with "ascii art" smileys for speech browsers using
CSS I don't need it.  My forms don't use reset-buttons, where hiding
them with CSS would be an idea.

> What browser do you use?

See header,
 Frank
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 21:20:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:24 GMT