Jens Oliver Meiert | 22 Aug 10:32 2015

Re: Unsought-for redirection to NU validator (was: Fwd: Request for forward)

Forwarding on behalf of Philip (cc’ed). Does anyone know why his
emails would be rejected? Is there some list filter applied to his
email or such?


I have sent a number of messages to this list, but since late 2014 all
have disappeared without trace (they do not appear in the archives, and
have generated no response).  The most recent of these was sent two days
ago :

> Message-ID: <55D33494.4000400 <at> Rhul.Ac.Uk>
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:35:16 +0100
> From: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor <at> Rhul.Ac.Uk>
> Reply-To: P.Taylor <at> Rhul.Ac.Uk
> Organization: The Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway, University of London
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:36.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0 SeaMonkey/2.33.1
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: www-validator <at>
> Subject: Unsought-for redirection to NU validator
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> On attempting to access :
> I am now, for some, but not all values of <whatever>, redirected to :
(Continue reading)

Anna Marie Golden | 19 Aug 01:08 2015

Not a fan of the Nu Html Checker switch for HML5 documents

Hello.  I would like to provide feedback on HTML5 validation with the W3C Markup Validation Service.  I apologize if I am sending this feedback to the wrong address- I had a little difficulty with finding where to send feedback that is not a bug or feedback about a specific error message.

I do not like that, when checking an HTML5 page, the validator is switched to the Nu Html Checker.  I have seen this checker in the past and did not use it because I do not like how results are displayed.
  • There is no summary at the beginning of results that provides the number of errors and warnings.  I find this very helpful in doing a quick check of a site's page.
  • Result items are not displayed in a user-friendly format.  They are too "busy" and look cluttered with the outlines, borders, and colors which make it more difficult to skim through the list of results.  I like the way results are presented in the W3C version- it is much cleaner.  I don't need to see past the presentation to see the warning or error.
  • Results do not provide the same level of detail as the W3C version and there is no option for verbose output.  I sometimes find this helpful in understanding my error.  I also refer folks to this site frequently, many of them web dev novices, and the "short and sweet" version of error and warning messages are confusing to this audience because they don't fully understand web standards.  It may be too inconvenient for them to look up every error message in the list of error messages and their interpretation so they may just end up skipping it all together, which is not a good thing for accessibility.  It just isn't very user-friendly to present users with a message and then expect them to go somewhere else for an explanation of that message.  It would be better to present this information with a verbose option for warning and error messages, as the w3C version does.
  • I didn't like the surprise factor the first time I saw Nu Html Checker instead of the W3C Validator.  There is no indication that the Validator will switch to the Checker for HTML5 documents.  It was disappointing to not see the interface I was used to interacting with.
My preference is for the w3C Markup Validation Service over the Nu Html Checker.  Thanks for allowing my proverbial "two-cents."

Have a GREAT day!

​Anna Marie​

Anna Marie Golden, MHCID
​Master of Human-Computer Interaction + Design, Class of 2014​

IT Accessibility Specialist
Access Technology Services, UW-IT

(206) 221-4164

Mailing Address:
Box 354842
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-4842

Street Address:
4545 Building
4545 - 15th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98105

Vikram Dixit | 18 Aug 09:56 2015

Validator Error


I have a website when i checked it in the w3 validator it is showing me 50 errors, which i think is not good for the website. how can i solve this problem, i am not good in programming and website is in the PHP.


Vikram Dixit
Quinn Comendant | 18 Aug 03:29 2015

Feed Validation Service: need to update itunes:category list

Apple's podcast specs lists more categories that the W3C Feed Validation Service doesn't know about:

Rutger Dijkstra | 14 Aug 15:19 2015
Picon horloges, sieraden, zonnebrillen


We've tried to
​validate and the following issue was raised:

​Attribute xmlns:fb not allowed here.

<html xmlns="" xmlns:fb="" xml:lang="nl" lang="nl" xmlns:og="" xmlns:fb="">

​We were wondering why this attribute is'nt allowed and what should be the correct position.

​Thanks in advanced.​

​Kind regards,​


Online Marketeer

Postbus 5165
9700 GD Groningen

Telefoon: 050 - 2011 559

Michael J. Cripps | 12 Aug 16:45 2015

Cold Fusion and new validator?

I have long used the W3C validator service to validate my .cfm files online. Recently, using the Nu HTML Checker, I find that I get no actual validation output. It reports completing the validation, but offers no report.

Is there a legacy validator still available?


Michael J Cripps
Associate Editor, Across the Disciplines
Associate Professor, Rhetoric & Composition
Director of Composition
Department of English
University of New England
11 Hills Beach Road
Biddeford, Maine 04005

Rick Sportel | 11 Aug 22:48 2015

Question about validating - elements not allowed

Some errors came up and two of them I have a question about. What does 'element not allowed' exactly mean?

I know the elements are not allowed the way the are being used right now. But the real question is: can they harm my website? Will some browsers maybe show the webpage differently because of the poorly placed elements?

The exact messages were:

- Attribute xmlns:v not allowed here.

- Element style not allowed as child of element div in this context. (Suppressing further errors from this subtree.)

The website was built using WordPress. Should I ask the developers of the theme to resolve these errors? Or can I accept them because they won't hurt my WordPress website?

Kind regards,


Felix Miata | 11 Aug 19:06 2015

no errors == no report???

I submitted to via upload option. It reported
errors. I fixed them. I resubmitted. The results ever since have been:

	Info: The Content-Type was text/html. Using the HTML parser.
	Info: Using the schema for HTML with SVG 1.1, MathML 3.0, RDFa 1.1, and ITS
2.0 support.
	Document checking completed.

without any mention of success, and the "check by" (file upload) field
reporting no file selected.

UA ID: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.33.1; Build ID: 20150321194732

"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***

Tech Crates | 11 Aug 18:37 2015

Removing of Warnings...


I didn't hear from you regarding a way to rectify the errors for my tech site 

Here is the validator link 

Tech Crates | 5 Aug 20:33 2015

Rectifying Errors...


for my tech site, I have got a couple of warnings upon verifying here

Can you please tell me a way to address these?


Michael Laudahn | 9 Aug 07:37 2015

Vimeo uses ALLOWFULLSCREEN, you won't - can't you talk to each other?


Please run

through the validator: 6 Vimeo videos on it, so predictably 18 ALLOWFULLSCREEN error messages (3 per
video) on it. 

I tried to talk to Vimeo (support <at>, but for a layman as me it was useless. Maybe you can have a more
fruitful discussion?

Best regards

Michael Laudahn