- 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