- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:23:18 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > I come in peace. I don't know if that's allowed:-| > 1) lack of DOCTYPE in documents, and > 2) lack of <meta http-equiv > In the case of 1), the validator will refuse to process the document > and the retuned page has no options for revalidation (which it has when > the URL is sent). I think this problem could be improved if there was > a way for us to tell the validator "please look for a DOCTYPE in what > we send you, if you can't find any use HTML 4.01 transitional". I tend to agree with you there. Of course, it will still complain about the missing doctype. We can get this behaviour by adding a DOCTYPE HTML line to the HTML catalogue file, causing OpenSP to infer <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM> when it encounters an <HTML> root element. That won't help when the <html> element itself is missing, but that seems to be relatively unusual these days, except in severely broken pages. > 2) is slightly trickier. Most pages include this information in the > HTTP header, but Opera does not pass this information along with the > source. Is there a way for us to do so? One that would be overridden > by the META tag, if found? Surely that's a matter for you as browser developer to fix? The validator.w3.org service is geared towards interactive use from the form supplied. But an agent such as Opera would surely be better- served by a webservice. We are able to offer a validation plugin for MSIE because Site Valet offers an XML-based validation webservice and Jim was able to script access to it on the Client side. Perhaps Opera might be interested in adopting a similar approach? -- Nick Kew
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 20:23:22 UTC