- From: <JAMESICUS@aol.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:02:37 EDT
- To: www-validator@w3.org, bertilow@hem.passagen.se
Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
> Actually there is _no working XHTML validator out there now_. All that
> I have tried are seriously broken, and the one at W3C is by far
> the worst.
I have been following your message threads with fascination and great
interest. I ran your two test exemplars:
http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/mad.html
http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/testform.htm
through the W3C and WDG Validators and sure enough they passed muster with
the usual "Congratulations ..." message.
A run through the XHTML Validator 0.9 produced "element name mismatch" ...
? for your file "mad.html" and "unconsumed element 'input' " ... ? for your
file "check.html".
What really surprised me was that both of your files passed muster
("Congratulations" , etc.) when I ran them in XML.com's RUWF (are you well
formed) XML Syntax Checker:
http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/tools/ruwf/check.html
I have been checking all of my XHTML 1.0 (Transitional) pages using the W3C
Validator in conjunction with the XML.com RUWF checker (as an additional
verifier) and assumed I was producing fully valid XHTML pages. Your
observations and queries, Bertilow, have really tweaked my curiosity and I
will follow the (hopefully quick) resolution with greater interest yet.
James Pickering
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 07:03:13 UTC