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