- From: Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:45:05 +0900
- To: mrwizkid <mrwizkid@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Hi, Which validator are you referring to? If it's for the markup validator it should go to the www-validator list. Cheers, Sangwhan On 2009/09/16, at 1:43 PM, mrwizkid wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to to know why does the w3c validator validate a > website as being 100% compliant if it has a missing or invalid URI ? > > I have found that whether a website has or does not have a valid URI > it still validates i noticed this for HTML 4.01 Transitional > DOCTYPES i have not tried others. > > We all know that if there is an invalid or missing URI it will put > IE browsers in QuirksMode which means that not all code will work > correctly like i have found with some Csscode i used in one of my > recent projects. Because of this shouldnt w3c validator NOT make a > site 100% compliant i know that for the most part if you had a > missing or invalid URI such as the following > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > > Most browsers will still work and even IE will work to come extent > but depending on the code used will it depend on the unexpected > results. > > By adding the URI eg > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd > "> > > This resolves the issues in IE browsers as it wont put the browser > in QuirksMode and therefor display the page correctly. > > For this reason i will argue that the w3c validator should not make > a site 100% compatible and at the very least give a WARNING about > the possibility of a page not rendering properly if there is a > missing or invalid URI. > > Please let me know your thoughts are some explanation to this theory ? > > Thanks. -- Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>, Opera Software ASA Skype: innodb1 | Mobile: +372-5971-6147
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 07:45:56 UTC