RE: XHTML validation

Christian Smith:

> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2000JanMar/0166.html>

> > That discussion does not really adrress the current issue. It only talks
> > about a few special cases where errors might slip through.

> It does point to the fact that W3C is aware of serious problems with the
> current validator and they are look to fix this.

I hope you're right. But what should have been done immediately is to
put up a text that says clearly something like "Sorry, this validator
does not validate XHTML at the moment. We're looking to fix that".

Or perhaps they should have just shut the thing down...

Since nothing like that has been done I take it that no people in
charge are reading this list. So, why do we bother?

> > Tidy is broken too...

> Tidy is not a validator. It is a linter. 

True. But it's still broken. Not at seriously though. It just insists
on calling strict XHTML transitional some of the time.

PS. Sorry for sounding a bit irritated. The reason is that I am
a bit irritated....

#####################################################################
                          Bertilo Wennergren
                  <http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
                      <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
#####################################################################

Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 08:48:33 UTC