- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 04:55:47 +0200
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
* Terje Bless wrote: >>>>In our german web authoring newsgroup Thomas Mager just wondered why >>>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.art-emilio.de/galerie.shtml?Acryl;1 >Yeah, I'm kinda with you so far, but how does that change whether or not >the page is Valid? http://www.art-emilio.de/galerie.shtml?Acryl;1 valid http://www.art-emilio.de/galerie.shtml?Acryl invalid. User wants to validate the first one but the Validator retrieves and validates the latter. >We ignore unknown parameters completely Yes, that's what I am complaining about. Unknown parameters should get reported to avoid confusion. >Waitaminute... *argl*! :-) >We end up requesting a different page and that page happens >to be invalid? So the extra params aren't affecting _our_ behaviour, it's >the _lack_ of params that makes the _validated_ server change _it's_ >«behaviour»? IOW, it's not an error in the Validator -- the error lies with >the user failing to escape CGI params -- it's just that it would be a >usefull feature to actually give a warning about it to make the user aware >that s/he needs to escape these characters? We can harldy do that. Complain about invalid parameters is fair enough. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b70e0ab.6398430%40news.bjoern.hoehrmann.de -- Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de 25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 22:56:28 UTC