W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Validator

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:22:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9B7A1C.2080601@w3.org>
To: Gavin Landon <gavin.landon@gmail.com>
CC: Public MWBP <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Gavin Landon wrote:
[...]
> It doesn't like PUBLIC?

It does like PUBLIC but, when PUBLIC is used, the system identifier (the 
HTTP address at the end of the DOCTYPE) must be set. In your case, the 
correct DOCTYPE would be:

  <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

instead of:

  <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">


> I went to google.com/m <http://google.com/m> to 
> see how they use it, and they are using public.  I copied their line and 
> pasted it in place of mine and I think it breaks MobileOK.  The results 
> ani-image is moving, but it never goes to the next page.  I removed the 
> DOCTYPE and it works, added it back and it freezes again.   Google uses:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.0//EN" 
> "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/xhtml-mobile10.dtd"> 
> <http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/xhtml-mobile10.dtd%22%3E>
> Now, this completely messes my site up, so I removed it again.
> I thought I understood the meaning of doctype, but I must be missing 
> something, even still.

If you say your page follows the XHTML Mobile 1.0 DTD whereas it follows 
the HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD in practice, things are likely to break, yes.



>  >Neither the HTML page nor the CSS page contain any character encoding
>  >declaration. This means browsers need to "sniff and guess" the encoding.
>  >Most of the time, they will just get it right, in particular when
>  >documents are written in English because they won't contain any
>  >"weird" character.
> Ok, after that being said along with the information mentioned above, 
> I'm noticing that MobileOK is looking at more of what the server says, 
> rather than the code within the page says.  I'm not so sure this is a 
> good idea or why we have HTML tags that are ignored, since most people 
> like myself use a hosting provider and have no control over how the 
> server is configured.  That being said, I added a Header of ContentType 
> within my server side code and it cleared up some of the errors.   I did 
> this for all my pages as well as the style sheet.

I note I should complete the error description to explain that authors 
may not have access to internal server configuration settings, but I'm 
not so sure I understand why it would not be a good idea to alert 
authors about things that could have an impact on the final user 
experience on mobile devices. Even if you do not have any kind of 
control over the server configuration, you could:
  1. talk to your hosting service.
  2. switch to another hosting service that allows you to change some 
settings.
  3. at the very least, know why, say, your content takes some time to 
be displayed on mobile devices if caching is not allowed in the HTTP 
headers.


>  
> Note: MobileOK, has the message of:
> The document is not served as "application/xhtml+xml"
>  
> No where do I specify it is, so why would it be looking for ASP pages to 
> be served as an application?   If I set my pages to this, it prompts to 
> download the page instead of displaying them.

In the desktop world, IE does not support this media type, which 
probably explains why you are prompted to download the page. Other 
browsers usually support this media type.

The message is a warning. A warning may mean: please have a look, this 
may *or may not* be relevant to your content. In your case, it does not 
make any sense to serve HTML content with an XHTML content type.

I will try to detect when the underlying content is HTML content and 
come up with a clearer warning description.


[...]

Francois.
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:22:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC