W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [ANN] markup validator 0.8.3 released

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:27:13 +0200
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <g7n8bm$nrb$1@ger.gmane.org>

olivier Thereaux wrote:

>> Did you use another public identifier ?

> PubID      = -//IETF//DTD HTML i18n/EN
> ouch, looks like a typo

First fox for version 0.8.4 :-)

>>| Conformance: The validator now warns about incorrect
>>| public/system identifiers combinations

>> They are not really "incorrect", or are they ?  The
>> warning uses the adjective "inconsistent".
 
> Would you call this correct?
 
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
>    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
 
> That was precisely the kind of cases we found in the wild.

Ugh, I needed some time to get the 1 != 1.1 joke.
 
You convinced me months ago that a warning is good.

The warning says "inconsistent".  IMHO using the same
adjective "inconsistent" also in whatsnew.html would
be more consistent than writing "incorrect". 

I don't use XHTML 1.1, but I'd know where to find a
flat DTD for an inconsistent (but hopefully correct)
system identifier for this beast, here:

http://validator.w3.org/sgml-lib/REC-xhtml11-20010531/xhtml11-flat.dtd

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4848

Terje's comment confirms that using adjectives like 
"broken" or "incorrect" can be too harsh.  

The flat DTD above is hopefully not "broken", because
it is what the validator actually uses.  Even if folks
manage to use the "correct" system identifier.

This spooked me years ago, while the validator still
used the 1st edition of XHTML 1, and I wanted the 2nd
edition.  I forgot the details, but after that event
I used "inconsistent" validator.w3.org DTDs in system
identifiers where possible.

> in practice, I'm sure throwing a warning to enforce
> that DOCTYPE declarations are consistent with what
> the specs say does more good than harm.

Yes, I didn't intend to restart this discussion. The
warnings are okay.  Please s/incorrect/inconsistent/
in whatsnew.html for consistency :-)

> You are talking about a very small fraction of users who
> * know their SGML by heart,
> * know what they are doing when they edit a SI in a document,
> *and are able to *understand* the warning from the validator, and  
> *assess* whether it applies.

It was because I did *NOT* know what I'm doing when I
tried to "fix" the system identifiers years ago.  Only
much later I figured out that the validator ignores
the system id. for all DTDs it knows by its public id.,
and my wannabe "fix" was a complete waste of time.

But in a certain sense it was very "consistent", today
I'd just ignore the warnings.  Maybe I update my XHTML
template to be "correct" when I get a round tuit.

 Frank
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2008 17:27:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:30 GMT