- From: Validome-Staff <staff@validome.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:05:33 +0200
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <015801c81261$7f57d750$6af606d9@alex>
Hi Olivier, Here is our statement: > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena1004 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena4021 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena2002 Here Validome advices the user to use our XML-Validator, as a HTML-Validator is not the appropriated tool to check XML...;-) > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena1005 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena1007 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena1011 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena1012 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena1014 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena1015 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena4019 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena4020 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena2 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena13 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena14 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5006 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5007 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5008 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5009 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5010 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5011 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5021 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5025 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5026 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5027 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5028 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena6030 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5030 Here we corrected our claims, sorry for not keeping the comparison up to date. BUT: Until you renewed the W3C-Validator by implementing LibXML, the announcements were right and you knew this about an year... (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2006Apr/0072.html) > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena4011 > HTML 4.01 document with no system Id. > Validome sends a warning... Not necessary per the spec. > W3C Markup validator passes validation. > Why is W3C validator marked as faulty here? References please? http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/global.html#h-7.2 Other way: Where is specified, that System-Id can be missed? > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena4012 > XHTML doctype without system Id, but valid public id. > Validation should report an error (both validators do), but why does > validome count this as a fatal error? That one has coding reasons. > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena4023 > Validome says valid. OpenSP and W3C Markup validator says not valid. > I'd tend to trust opensp here. The comparison page's claim that validome is the only validator doing the right thing is very dubious. > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena4024 > Ditto above. The comparison page's claim that validome is the only > validator doing the right thing is very dubious. What is here dubious? It's about SGML (not HTML) documents. > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena8 > W3C markup validator uses algorithm for charset detection, finds > none, uses fallback > Validome uses... exactly the same algorith (to the point of having > almost the same error message...), finds no charset, yields a fatal > error. > I'm very curious to know why validome passes and w3c markup validator > fails here. I think the opposite: validome's taste for fatal error is > a grave failure in usability. The "old" W3C-Validator made a fallback o US-ASCII, the "new" to UTF-8. Can you explain this, please? We asked many times W3C-Germany and Bjoern Hoehrmann in regard to the *correct* behaviour of an validator in the case of a fallback, but we didn't get any *exact* answer. In this case, the specs are very unexact and ambiguous. Please give us a *mandatory" answer - with a link reference to appropriate specifications - upon this case. The only clear case till now is XHTML, there validators should make a fallback to UTF-8 (depending on MIME-Type), HTML is still ambiguous... > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena2008 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena2009 > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena2010 Old, deprecated examples because of unclear and ambiguous specifications. > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena2041 > The comparison page is incorrect. The W3C Markup validator has the > proper behavior here. The W3C-Validator doesn't detect the conflict. > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena5020 > I strongly disagree that the W3C Markup's validator behavior is > incorrect, here. > text/html is allowed for XHTML 1.0 We don't claim here, the behaviour of the W3C-Validator is wrong, we say that we miss the appropriate note. In accordance to http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#media a XHTML document should be delivered with MIME-Type text/html when it meets the guidelines of HTML compatibility. That is what a validator shoul claim and Validome does it. > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena7003 > I'd like to see a reference for this. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2.3 "...The id attribute, on the other hand, may not contain character references." > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena7005 (and 7006) > This has nothing to do with validation. If validome emulates some of > the features of a link checker, compare it to link checkers, not > validator. This test is moot. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2.4 "A reference to an unavailable or unidentifiable resource is an error" ... "If a user agent cannot locate a linked resource, it should alert the user" Where is here the "moot"? The W3C-Specification is very clear in this case... > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena3002 > This test is bogus. Sorry. An XML declaration also happens to be a > proper SGML PI. Giving a warning asking the HTML4 author "are you > sure you want this here" may be a good idea. Making this a fatal > error is wrong, wrong, wrong. If a XML-declaration is allowed in SGML, I'd like to see a reference for this. *If* this should be right, ehat about the priority of the encoding attribute within declararion vs. META-element?????? > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena3006 > The comparison page is incorrect. Output of a warning for a shorttag > construct is a good thing (dev version of w3c validator actually does > it) but not required. The current W3C Validator's behavior is not wrong. > > * http://www.validome.org/out/ena3007 > ditto. Learn about shorttags. Validome is actually wrong here, this > should not be reported as an error, at most a warning. Oh, her we have hundred opinions of the case. Could you please show us a *exact* reference? BTW: At the moment, we are implementing the W3C Validator in a free out of the box software solution for Windows users, together with validome. When trying to implement, there are some inconsitencies/bugs we found: 1. The W3C-SGML-Parser uses two catalog files: xml.soc and sgml.soc. Within xml.soc there are 21 points missing, all regarding SVG 1.1 Tiny and "SVG 1.1 Basic. 2. We missed 6 DTDs, necessary to get the download package running. 3. Your LibXML-Implementation was not correct - you just use the catalog files of your SGML-Parser instead of taking care of the the "official" catalog specification (http://www.xmlsoft.org/catalog.html#Simple). Because of this, LibXML tries to get the external DTDs instead of the local ones. You write within your CVS (http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check?rev=1.574&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup): # [NOT] loading the XML catalog for entities resolution as it seems to cause a lot of unnecessary DTD/entities fetching (requires >= 1.53 if enabled) #$xmlparser->load_catalog( File::Spec->catfile($CFG->{Paths}->{SGML}->{Library}, 'xml.soc') ); That is not right, as your implementation is not correct. BUT: Youcan download the fixes on http://www.validome.org/W3C_fix.rar, with the fixes it works (Problem 1+2+3 solved). Best regards, Alex
Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 14:59:46 UTC