RE: Problems with validating <table> elements

> ...although if you're nesting tables you'll find that omitting them
> is not the most helpful thing to do for browser implementations.

Right.  The purpose of running the validator is to find problems during
development, and dropped </td> and </tr> tags are the kinds of things that
need to be caught because they could be indicators of bigger problems with
the site.  And running Tidy, as Masayasu has suggested, doesn't help at all.

Bottomline, it would be great if there were a flag on the validator that
would allow for "strict table elements checking".

And while someone's at it it would be great if it were possible to turn off
the &entity; checking in urls -- no one needs to be told that
"/foo.asp?a=b&c=d" has an uknown entity &c (and the suggestion to replace
all & with &amp; in urls not the correct response :-)

Just my $0.02.

Best,
-- Frank



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 4:27 AM
> To: Masayasu Ishikawa
> Cc: frank@digitalcomet.com; www-validator@w3.org; leahy@wired.com
> Subject: Re: Problems with validating <table> elements
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
>
> > "Frank Leahy" <frank@digitalcomet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The validator no longer validates <table> elements
> correctly.  For example,
> > > it does not report an error when a </td> or </tr> element is
> > > missing.
> >
> > In HTML 4, end tag of "td" or "tr" element may be omitted.
>
> ...although if you're nesting tables you'll find that omitting them
> is not the most helpful thing to do for browser implementations.
>
> L.
>
> <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
>

Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 14:14:47 UTC