W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2017

Re: valid html5?

From: Jens Oliver Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:39:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ0g8QRERFufp0_Qoo5WL4FS6Aq4oV=qZ-vN276XSe5JCpy3eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Claude Martin <Claude.Martin@msg-systems.com>
Cc: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
> Shouldn’t the validator at least give a “warning” or “notice” for missing
> <head>, <body> and </p>?

No, it’s valid :)

> I’m sure there are reasons for this, but it doesn’t help at all to find
> bugs.

There are only few cases where this can lead to something like a bug;
among the most popular are scenarios like <p><img>, which an author
may have meant to result in <p></p><img>—implying an anonymous block
element—but end up as <p><img></p>. Is this something you experienced?

Other than that, when authors consistently omit *all* optional tags,
it leads to rather predictable and very understandable (for minimal)
markup. I’m feeling free to refer to a rather simple case, but one
that would otherwise mean a rather awful lot of HTML code:

Jens Oliver Meiert
Received on Friday, 27 January 2017 21:40:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 January 2017 21:40:39 UTC