Re: The beta validator

Ville Skyttä <> wrote:

>On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 15:16, elfin wrote:
>>Whilst testing a page for xhtml 1 strict compliance I noticd it didn't
>>pick up some unescaped &'s whereas the 'public' validator picked them
>Whoo.  Looks like you're right.  Here's a couple of sample pages:
>I'll go file a bug.

These are now reported as Warnings even for Valid documents. Without
digging too deeply into this it appears as though bare amperstands are not
in fact invalid. I speculate that these do not introduce entity references
since entity references cannot be null. You do get warnings about them, but
only because the characters are significant to SGML.

I need to dig some more to find out whether this is actually a bug in

If you believe that will stop spammers, you're sadly misled. Rusty hooks,
rectally administered fuel oil enemas, and the gutting of their machines,
*that* stops spammers!                                         -- Saundo

Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 16:46:52 UTC