Re: [ANN] W3C Markup Validator 0.8.0, Beta 2

Hi Frank,

On Jun 17, 2007, at 10:28 , Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Oops, please don't do this for the "direct input" forms.  It's kind
> of tricky to clean a textarea with Netscape 3.x, such old browsers
> assume that everybody offers "reset" buttons.

I have to admit you're the first one asking to keep the reset button.  
Everything I could read, and feedback I know about so far was fairly  
adamant that keeping the button was a usability issue in itself.  
Mostly, I think, because the OK/Cancel button setup differs between  
platforms and as a result.

> IMO it's one of the
> rare cases where style="display:none" is acceptable.

I would not personally mind that. Any objection?

> IIRC you had that in a global stylesheet for "reset" buttons (?)

Can't remember that, but it's not altogether improbable.

> As it happens I verified that issue with an XML file, but that did
> not work.  Somebody proposed to add "parse mode" buttons for this
> case, checking the source it's already there but commented out.

It's there in the UI but there is nothing at the backend for it.
I'd like to first get a working improved XML detection when a proper  
XML declaration is present, and see if the need for the parse mode  
button (which I honestly dislike) disappears.

> The arrangement of the buttons is rather strange (without CSS), I
> see as 1st line "full", as 2nd line the "DOCTYPE" selection plus
> checkbox "only if missing", and as 3rd line the "fragment" radio
> button belonging to the 1st line.
> Without CSS I actually get two DOCTYPE choices, the selection for
> "full", and the simple HTML vs. XHTML for "fragment".  Is that state
> of the art today, accessibilty requires CSS ?  Serious question, no
> offense intended.

I tested the UI without javascript and/or without CSS, and it seemed  
OK. Your two paragraphs also say "without CSS" although I suspect one  
is with, and one without. Would you mind sending me (or the list, if  
the attachments aren't too big) screenshots? Thanks.

> Oops, a potential bug, I used "upload" for a *.kml file (some XML
> stuff used by Google Earth).  My browser has no clue what *.kml
> is, it won't say "text/xml" when I upload it.  The validator also
> has no clue what it is, but it says:
> | "This Page Is Valid (no Doctype found)"
> WTH did it validate, did this *.kml file happen to be valid SGML ?

It's not really valid, IIRC KML files don't have a doctype or  
anything. So basically the sgml parser throws the usual two errors:
* prolog can't be omitted unless CONCUR NO and LINK EXPLICIT NO and  
* no document type declaration; will parse without validation
(and doesn't say anything after that)

In XML mode, it would see that the root is not <html>, and thus  
consider it well-formed XML, end of the story.
In SGML mode
   -> if the root element is <html> it would fall back on HTML 4.01  
Transitional, and shoot a warning about that.
   -> otherwise... nothing happens. I think this is the bug we're  
seeing here.
   I'm adding a warning saying "no doctype found,and unknown root  
element. Aborting validation". Now for the tricky question: should it  
say "invalid (no doctype found)"? Validity doesn't really apply here...


Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 19:33:17 UTC