Re: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]

Did he attach the document? That would have been quite a bit more
useful. On its face we just have him saying there's a doc that the
standard parsers don't think is valid, but he thinks is valid, with no
more detail.

Looking in a bit more, the text of the first error mentions a
ContentType entity, which sounds like something in the DTD indeed. I
wonder which DTD? He mentions HTML 4.01 Strict, but I tried running
one through the checker and get an error about not having a local copy
of that DTD. Oops, something for me to chase down.

The second error -- sounds like the DOCTYPE specifies an "html" root
but he uses "HTML" -- is it case sensitive in fact? I confess I do not
know what is very technically correct there. The parser rejects it, at
least.

Last one, not sure what to make of it. I actually did not think the
"<link/>" syntax existed in HTML, only in XML-based languages. Again,
I am not sure on that.

So, there is one thing I can chase down; the other two I'm not sure
are bugs. Kind of odd, no document or example attached, and
specifically did not want to be contacted about this issue.

Sean

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
>
>  Some bugs highlighted below when checking HTML 4.01 documents...
>
>  Dom
>
>  -------- Message transféré --------
>  > À: dom@w3.org
>  > Sujet: MobileOK Validator Issues
>  > Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:57:05 -0800
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Hi Dominique,
>  >
>  >
>  > I've found some issues with the mobileOK validator behavior when
>  > attempting to validate a document with an HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. I
>  > don't have time to deal with signing up for a mailing list or whatever
>  > so I'll just drop this off with you to deal with : )
>  >
>  >
>  > This is sent from a one-time Gmail account so, sorry, you won't be
>  > able to get back to me.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ==Failure Message #1:==
>  >
>  >
>  > Note that this failure message appear twice -- citing the same page
>  > line number.
>  >
>  >
>  >     "The document is an HTML document and it fails
>  >
>  >         to validate according to its given DOCTYPE: The
>  >
>  >         declaration for the entity "ContentType" must end with '>'.
>  >
>  >        (per CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT)".
>  >
>  >
>  > This is not true -- the document is valid according to its doctype. An
>  > appropriate failure message (appearing one time) would be:
>  >
>  >
>  >     "This document uses an HTML DOCTYPE;
>  >
>  >      the XHTML Basic DOCTYPE is required for mobileOK
>  >
>  >      validation. (per WHATEVER SPECIFICATION)"
>  >
>  >
>  > There may be similar issues with non-Basic XHTML, and XML, doctypes.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ==Failure Message #2:==
>  >
>  >
>  > Note that this failure message appear twice -- citing the same page
>  > line number.
>  >
>  >
>  >     "The document does not validate against the XHTML Basic
>  >
>  >      1.1 DTD nor MP 1.2: Document root element "html", must
>  >
>  >      match DOCTYPE root "HTML". (per CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT)"
>  >
>  >
>  > This is not true -- the document root and DOCTYPE declaration do match
>  > (both HTML). This failure message should not occur.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ==Additional Issue==
>  >
>  >
>  > Note a general problem for mobileOK with this failure message, if an
>  > unclosed empty tag is found:
>  >
>  >
>  >     "The document does not validate against the
>  >
>  >      XHTML Basic 1.1 DTD nor MP 1.2: The element
>  >
>  >      type "link" must be terminated by the matching
>  >
>  >      end-tag "</link>". (per CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT)"
>  >
>  >
>  > The phrasing of this message is inaccurate as (if I'm not mistaken) an
>  > empty tag can be validly terminated in XHTML/XML with a closing slash
>  > in the single empty tag as well as a matching end-tag.
>  >
>  >
>  > Thanks
>  >
>
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 9 March 2008 17:46:05 UTC