W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Approved TAG finding: Authoritative Metadata

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:10:12 +0900
Message-Id: <23AC42D8-026C-47B8-8609-1403477AB3CF@w3.org>
Cc: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

Le 14 août 06 à 11:38, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> To clarify, I was referring specifically to the fourth paragraph,  
> where he
> highlights that the "W3C does not invest in these tools, it relies on
> volunteers", and to his detailed explanation of the lack of support  
> from
> the working group tasked with maintaining the specifications for  
> which the
> W3C's markup validator performs conformance checking.
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2006Jul/0058

then W3C Member WGs.

> I did not mean to imply that Bjoern said that the QA team was not  
> doing
> its best given the current constrained situation it is faced with.


> But all of this does not stop the fact that the validator, after  
> over a
> year of the bug being reported, still has a bug critical to the  
> subject at
> hand. *Even the W3C's validator does Content-Type sniffing.* If the QA
> team is responsible for the validator, then the QA team is  
> responsible for
> this bug.

*beautiful* :)

According to the HTML WG, a UA is non-compliant if it handles an  
XHTML document
sent as text/html as XHTML; such a UA must apparently handle the  
document as
HTML regardless of what it looks like.

# [...] documents served as text/html should be treated
# as HTML and not as XHTML.
  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024.html

The fact that the validator ignores this means that documents that  
don't comply
to appendix C of XHTML 1.0 are being marked as valid when in fact  
they aren't
conformant and won't be handled correctly.

This is causing people to file bugs on browsers (I've seen it happen  
to Opera,
Safari, and Mozilla) which are invalid. The browsers are doing the  
right thing,
but the documents are wrong. Yet the validator is telling them that the
documents are fine.

I would like to see the validator reject any XHTML-sent-as-text/html  
as being of
the wrong MIME type.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1500

> If the W3C validator itself can't get authoritative metadata handling
> correct, then why expect the vendors of other tools, let alone the  
> authors
> of content, to get it right? If anything, this underscores why I  
> think the
> TAG finding in question is unworkable.

So you sent a bug report, thinking there will be no solutions. A trap?

(here I'm trying to find a solution to improve and find someone with  
the perl skills to fix the bug if it's possible.)

> I went into more detail about what I think the real problem with the
> finding is in this post:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0030.html
> ...so I'll stop now.


Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 05:10:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:13 UTC