- From: Michael Adams <linux_mike@paradise.net.nz>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:02:52 +1200
- To: www-validator@w3.org
- Cc: Otto Wyss <otto.wyss@orpatec.ch>
CC: to OP On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:22:03 +0200 Otto Wyss wrote: > > Nick Kew wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:54:35 +0200 Otto Wyss <otto.wyss@orpatec.ch> > > wrote: > > > >> I've several times tried to located the bug by the validator when > >> validating "http://www.orpatec.ch/gallery.php" yet I think my page > >> is okay. Is there a problem with the validator? > > > > So what's not clear in the FAQ entry referenced? > > > First, the FAQ doesn't give any hint about the error, instead it > recommends reading the 'Common HTML Validation Problems document'. > This can easily be interpreted as the validator isn't able to handle > this problem. > > Second, within the 'Common HTML Validation Problems document', the > sentence 'Authors should avoid using strings such as "</P>"' is > completely useless. Either it's forbidden to use such code (which > isn't) or the validator has to handle it correctly. > That document highlights the issue AND offers the solution. If you escape the slash in your code on line 40 your page will be valid. ie This: ...'" class="folder">'+folders[i]+'</div>'); to this: ...'" class="folder">'+folders[i]+'<\/div>'); Further explaination here as referenced from the 'Common HTML Validation Problems document': http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.2.1 As for the rest of the ensuing discussion, fixing the HTML validation problem is one thing and creating side issues around poor code is onother. Otto; all browsers try to make allowances for poor code. Thus we get quirks mode browsing. They will often/usually present illegal code without presentational issues. That does not however make illegal code right because it "looks good in most browsers". So even though browsers ignore this error in your code, it does not make it OK. You obviously care about the validity of your code so i need say no more. -- Michael Linux: The OS people choose without $200,000,000 of persuasion.
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 01:02:50 UTC