Re: EARL in Page Valet

One possibility we discussed with EARL was to declare a "normatively valid"
transformation, for example by running something through a given version of
Tidy.

Would this be a useful idea, or a bad one?

cheers

chaals

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Nick Kew wrote:


  On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jim Ley wrote:

  > > Goal now reached.  Jim's going to see if this is any use to him
  > > a clientside app.
  >
  > Okay, done this...

  > [chop - observations suggesting we have some way to go with this]

  > For www.google.com, both Mozilla, and IE disagree with site-valet - but
  > then so do I !
  > Looking at "#1/2/1/2" that points to a <BR> yet the fuzzy pointer only
  > makes sense if it points at the table that comes after the BR.  - A bug
  > in Site-valets creation?

  It's an issue of error handling.  Because google has no FPI, SP (valet)
  is parsing it without a DTD, and using default SGML rules.  So it has
  no way of knowing that <br> should be empty.

  This has been bothering me for some time, but it's not clear how
  best to fix it.  Once upon a time we'd have inserted a default FPI,
  but all the validators have now stopped doing that.  Maybe we should
  revert to that as a fixup?

  Hmm - I'll crosspost this to www-validator.  Any other thoughts?



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)