W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2003

Re: css with xhtml-prologue

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 05:15:28 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: kevin@rosenberg.net, Chris Beggy <chrisb@kippona.com>
Message-ID: <a0106000f-1025-2C1FE5D0721511D7B5DF0030657B83E8@[]>

Chris Beggy <chrisb@kippona.com> wrote:

>On 16 Feb 2003, Kevin Rosenberg <kevin@rosenberg.net> wrote:
>>Chris Beggy wrote:
>>>It seemed essential for xhtml 1.0 validation.  I'm happy with xhtml
>>>1.1, and surprised that it more relaxed than xhtml 1.0, or html 4.01
>>>for these two tags. Maybe the validator is b0rken.
>>Before the xhtml 1.1 validator was online, the xhtml 1.0 validator was
>>happy with my <link ...></link><meta ...></meta>. You can check
>>http://lml.b9.com/ and see that the xhtml 1.0 validator is happy with
>Yes, it validates to xhtml 1.0, but I think the validator is hosed in
>this case.  The xhtml 1.1 doctype header is still there, and this seems
>to have an effect on the validator's output.
>If I strip out the xhmtl 1.1 doctype header and attempt to force
>validation as xhmtl 1.0, it fails on </meta> and </link> trailing tags.
>If I add an xhtml 1.0 doctype declaration to the head of that file and
>do auto detected validation, it also fails on </link> and </meta>
>trailing tags.
>>Nonetheless, since this tag doesn't contain anything, I'm happy to
>>change it to a <link ... /> type tag.
>If the present form is correct then don't change it.  On the other hand,
>I don't want the tag to pass because of a broken validator for one
>revision of the doctype.
>I think there should be a way to create a valid html 4.01 style, i.e.
><link ... >
>and a way to create a valid xhtml 1.0 style:
><link ... />
>I've attached the test case which fails xhtml 1.0 validation.

The file in question is not valid. The <meta> element in the XHTML 1.0
Strict DTD is defined thus:


The SGML System Declaration for XML also specifies:

             OMITTAG NO
                     EMPTY    NO
                     UNCLOSED NO
                     NETENABL IMMEDNET
                     EMPTY    NO
                     UNCLOSED NO

IOW, the "meta" element is declared as EMPTY -- not allowed to have any
content -- and cannot have an explicit and separate end tag. Thus the only
legal form for the meta element in XHTML is: <meta />.

Does that answer your question?

Now Playing "I Loves You Porgy" by "Nina Simone"",
 from the album "Feeling Good - The Very Best Of".
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 23:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:33 UTC