Re: Please be a good example

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 12.11.2016, 21:28, Philip Taylor wrote:
>
>> But http://validator.w3.org/ is coded in, and to comply with XHTML 1.0
>> Strict
>
> Good catch, too. But what makes http://validator.w3.org/ any more official than http://validator.w3.org/nu/ ?
A good question, and I think that the answer lies in http://validator.w3.org/ itself.  Since this page does not of itself say "This services (or page) is now deprecated; users are recommended to use instead http://validator.w3.org/nu/" (or words to that effect), and since http://validator.w3.org/ has existed for /far, far/ longer than http://validator.w3.org/nu/, I think that one is entitled to believe that http://validator.w3.org/ remains authoritative.
>
> Formally, the page conforms to the XHTML 1.0 specification, from year 2000. Is this what the W3C recommends in 2016?
If the validation service does not need to exploit any features of (X)HTML other than those present in XHTML 1.0, then there is no point (and no benefit) in updating the page(s) that provide that service.  The real issue here is that http://validator.w3.org/nu/ /*wrongly*/ diagnoses http://validator.w3.org/ as being in error, which it is not -- it conforms to the XHTML 1.0 specification to which it was written (as indicated in its DOCTYPE directive) and it is quite wrong of http://validator.w3.org/nu/to report errors that do not exist.

Philip Taylor