- From: Chris Beggy <chrisb@kippona.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 01:58:22 -0500 (EST)
- To: kevin@rosenberg.net
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20030217.015822.17863631.chrisb@kippona.com>
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 that. 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. Thanks. Chris
Attachments
- Text/Html attachment: stored
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 02:16:03 UTC