- From: Christian Smith <csmith@smith-family.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at 07:02, JAMESICUS@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
You really passed both of them thru the WDG validator and were told by the
WDG validator that they were valid? I just tried them and they both failed.
> 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
This (like the W3C validator) only tests for well-formedness. The
documents -are- well-formed, They just are not valid XHTML.
--
Cybernetic Humanoid Responsible for Infiltration and Sabotage
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 13:19:07 UTC