- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:26:29 +0900
- To: Christian Steinert <christian_steinert@web.de>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Hi Christian, On 8 nov. 07, at 00:02, Christian Steinert wrote: > - empty class="" attribute does not seem to be allowed, but is not > reported by the validator Empty class attribute wouldn't make sense, but I don't see any clear mention, either in the prose or in the machine-readable schemas that would make that forbidden. Do you have a reference stating that it would not be allowed. > - HTML-comments inside of CSS and script tags are legal XHTML, but > will cause content to be ignored by XHTML-conformant browsers I don't really see what's the problem with that. Could you give details or examples? > - tags with non-empty content model in HTML4 should be closed > explicitly in XHTML to ensure interoperability; the validator could > warn in such situations when validating XHTML > (e.g. <a id="foo" name="foo"></a> and not <a id="foo" name="foo" />) That's the job for the HTML compatibility checker, which is yet to be integrated into the validator indeed. I'd love to get some help on this. Anyone interested? > - named HTML entities like © are legal in XHTML when > specifiying a DTD, but a non-validating browser is free to ignore > the DTD and thus not know them; thus when using named entities > except > / < / "e; / & in XHTML, the validator should > warn True, named entities can be an issue in an XML toolset. I'm wondering how we could make such warnings useful and not confusing. Quite frankly, I can imagine some XHTML authors, simply authoring for browser consumption, being very puzzled if given a warning about perfectly legit entities... Regards, -- olivier
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 00:26:39 UTC