- From: Christian Smith <csmith@smith-family.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
- cc: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
On Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at 13:53, bertilow@hem.passagen.se (Bertilo Wennergren) wrote:
> James Pickering:
>
> > http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/mad.html
>
> > http://www.concinnity.se/bertilow/div/testform.htm
>
> > [...]
>
> > 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:
>
> Well, they are well-formed (I believe). The second one should be
> valid too, although it's hard to be sure, since there are no
> validators to check them with.
Manually check the file against the XHTML DTD. You'll see that the FORM
element takes form.content as it content.
<!ELEMENT form %form.content;>
form.content is defined as
<!ENTITY % form.content "(%block; | %misc;)*">
which means it takes zero or more elements of type block or misc. But,
INPUT is defined as being of type inline.forms
<!ENTITY % inline.forms "input | select | textarea | label | button">
so it is neither of type block nor type misc.
--
Cybernetic Humanoid Responsible for Infiltration and Sabotage
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 13:19:12 UTC