- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:09:54 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=826 johnny_bentley@yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From johnny_bentley@yahoo.com.au 2005-12-15 02:09 ------- Dear Björn, you misunderstand dododododoot's question. It was rhetorical. The current XHTML 1.1 recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/, points to http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_textmodule Modularization of XHTML™ W3C Recommendation 10 April 2001 Not to http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml-modularization-20040218/abstract_modules.html#s_textmodule Modularization of XHTML™ 1.0 - Second Edition W3C Working Draft 18 February 2004 Although this second "Modularization" document comes later it is only a working draft. I have emailed www-html-editor@w3.org to point out that PCDATA was not included in the blockquote. Maybe this is deliberate, maybe it is a mistake. Either way when you want to validate against XHTML 1.1, you want it to validate against THE recommendation, not a working draft. The recommendation DOES allow PCDATA within blockquotes. By the way the recommendation does make sense. It would seem pointless to force page authors to code: <blockquote><p>I am the greateast</p></blockquote> Rather than allow them, as the recommendation does allow,: <blockquote>I am the greatest</blockquote> I, for one, would be grateful if you (or whoever) where to recode the Validator to follow the recommendation.
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 02:10:04 UTC