- From: Nikita The Spider The Spider <nikitathespider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:18:38 -0400
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote: > > NAK: Warnings about issues users might be unable to change and > not necessarily interested to validate are excessively annoying. OK, then how should a validator tell when a problem is one that a user might not be able to change and/or is not interested in validating? > One of the HTTP servers I use claims that any text/html it sends > is Latin 1. For whatever reasons, it is lying, and I want to > validate an ASCII or windows-1252 page, not the braindead HTTP > server. It starts to get surreal when a validator says that it > will ignore windows-1252 treating the input as Latin-1, and > then emits "non-SGML char" warnings for octet 0x80 (hi Nikita). So should validators include an option for "my server is broken, please ignore select HTTP headers"? =) > There simply are no HTTP servers for ordinary users allowing to > upload .htaccess files, and there are no HTTP servers getting > it right without manual intervention. Some days ago I was very > excited when googlepages allowed me to upload a .htaccess file, > not the usual "forbidden name" blurb, but it turned out that it > simply stripped the dot and ignored the content... :-( Are you suggesting that there are no Web hosts that permit .htaccess files? -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 14:19:17 UTC