- From: Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:42:30 -0600
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- CC: www-validator@w3.org
On 2/5/2016 10:37 AM, David Dorward wrote: > On 3 Feb 2016, at 16:29, Richard Owlett wrote: > > comprehensible format > https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc.... gives ?????? > Even it admits it's of questionable usefulness. > [https://validator.w3.org/nu/about.html] > > I can trust the first. When I go to https://validator.w3.org > how can I /FORCE/ the first to be used. > > As far as I know, just using the form at https://validator.w3.org > will use the old checker (unless, of course, you have an HTML 5 > Doctype or override the Doctype detection since the old checker > doesn't have any support for HTML 5 at all). > > -- > David Dorward > http://dorward.co.uk/ > Thank you for the reply. In frustration I garbled my last sentence. I wanted to say I preferred the older checker as I'm used to it's reporting format [personally believe it is clearer]. Especially the summary line listing number of warnings and number of errors. Your reply gave me the hint I needed to resolve things to my satisfaction. The first line of the page that went to the old version was: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> The first line of the page which went to the experimental version was: <!DOCTYPE HTML> If I force checking the second as "HTML 4.01 Transitional", I get what I want. The same errors are reported. My web usage is very text oriented. I disable JavaScript and background images &/or color schemes to improve readability. My primary use of https://validator.w3.org/ is to give useful feedback to sites which give me problems.
Received on Monday, 8 February 2016 15:43:18 UTC