Re: [VE][66] An alternate assumption.

hi Yucca. : )
> Apparently you misunderstood the "assuming" part, but how else could  the 
> statement be formulated. I can't think of a _short_ formulation  that 
> would convey the idea better.

>> "document type does not allow
>> element X here; assuming  either missing Y start-tag or having an extra Y
>> end-tag that should  be removed."
 
That's the best I could come up with.  I don't think I could  have come up 
with the right answer on my own.  So I thought adding  that, "or having an 
extra Y end-tag that should be removed" would have helped me  and maybe 
others in the future.
 
Thank you for replying! :)
blessings,
Matthew
 
 
In a message dated 12/3/2011 6:25:38 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
jkorpela@cs.tut.fi writes:

2011-12-02 12:14, IcyPawn@aol.com wrote:

> Validating  http://ghbservices.com/
> Error [66]: "document type does not allow  element X here; assuming
> missing Y start-tag"
> I suggest  changing this error to say, "document type does not allow
> element X  here; assuming either missing Y start-tag or having an extra Y
> end-tag  that should be removed."

The expression "assuming..." describes the  validator's behavior in 
parsing the document, i.e. what it assumes for the  purposes of further 
processing. It needs to be something  specific.

Many of the validator's messages contain suggestions on what  might be 
the real cause of an error. But it seems that while they may  help, they 
may also mislead people - they are looking for something that  just isn't 
there, because their case is different.

In this case,  the problem is in the markup

<li  class="first"></li>
<ul><li>Many other specific  tips</li></ul></li></ol></div>

When the  <ul> tag is encountered, in the context of an </ol> element,  
where only <li> elements are allowed as children, the validator  reports 
an error, and then it has to proceed. The most natural assumption  is 
that there's a <li> tag missing, and that's what the validator  assumes. 
This implies that the </li> tag after the </ul> tag  is not reported as 
an error, as it would match the implied <li>  tag.

> That suggestion because my error
> message ('document  type does not allow element "ul" here; assuming
> missing "li"  start-tag') didn't make any sense to me.

Apparently you misunderstood  the "assuming" part, but how else could the 
statement be formulated. I  can't think of a _short_ formulation that 
would convey the idea  better.

Yucca