W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2012

Re: XHTML 1.0 Strict [Invalid]

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:07:45 +0300
Message-ID: <508939A1.3000006@cs.tut.fi>
To: Paul Andrew Anderson <paulandrewanderson@gmail.com>
CC: www-validator@w3.org
2012-10-22 1:14, Paul Andrew Anderson wrote:

> Rather than forcing code to read the content within a URL, and then,
> every URL in every webpage to conform to paradigms that, my I say, will
> never happen, it would make much more sense to have all coding (from
> HTML to HTML8, XHTML to ZHTML, strict, transitional, or otherwise
> titled, for the foreseeable future) to simply ignore all possible
> key-stroke content within the <"URL"> !!

Maybe so, and maybe this will some day happen in HTML5 or its 
successors. But that's not to be decided by people who provide 
validators. A validator is supposed to check documents against given 
rules, not to invent rules or argue about them.

Apart from the ad-hoc HTML5 validation, the W3C Validator is SGML or XML 
based and therefore applies the general rules of those languages. 
According to them, entity and character references shall be interpreted 
in attribute values, and therefore e.g. any occurrence of "&" as data 
character must be escaped.

> NOTE: Whenever possible, give the address of the document you were checking.
> Every URL that Google, Yahoo, and other search queries produce; every
> website that exists with a search query URL embedded!

You might be confusing URLs with the way they must be written in HTML. 
is correct as is. In HTML,
is not correct. Just as
is not correct when written as content in an HTML document. In both 
cases, you simply have to escape "&" as "&amp;" (or some equivalent way).

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 13:08:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18:07 UTC