W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > February 2002

Re: EARL in Page Valet

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:04:40 -0500 (EST)
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
cc: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202041703360.26601-100000@tux.w3.org>
One possibility we discussed with EARL was to declare a "normatively valid"
transformation, for example by running something through a given version of

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



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)
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 17:06:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:26 UTC