- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:56:08 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Jim Ley wrote: > We have nothing but your assertion that it was valid, I'm afraid whilst I > have a lot of trust in you, your failure to provide a URL of the document in > question, isn't very productive, OK, fair comment, especially since the bug is not reproducible quite as simply as I thought. Merely changing the id attribute type from ID to NAME wasn't actually enough. But running the validator on http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/id.html demonstrates the problem. (It also has NOBR added to %special, something that I normally do when using a customized DTD. Presumably the validator chokes on its internal limitation - this _has_ been reported years ago I think - and in this particular case fails to even tell this.) > That that the validator reported it as _not valid_ when the document was, > your above example only demonstrates the HTML.Version feature/bug, which I > certainly knew about, indeed I'd reported it a year or so ago. Well, _I_ didn't, and neither did most of us. The question is whether it makes sense to report bugs if they are not fixed but instead _deliberate_ bugs are being introduced and advertized as enhancements. (Yes, I am referring to the Beta version that intentionally flags valid pages as invalid.) -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 12:56:10 UTC