Error Message Feedback
2005-09-01 19:53:46 GMT
[ Add your message/question here.
Follow the instructions at
Could the error be explained in english it makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The DTD has been taken from your website and inserted into the page, why would this cause an error I have no idea.
Error : "DTDs other than base allowed only if CONCUR YES or EXPLICIT YES"
[ Add your message/question here.
Follow the instructions at
On 2005-09-01 13:44, David Hirst wrote: > Could the error be explained in english it makes absolutely no sense to > me whatsoever. The DTD has been taken from your website and inserted > into the page, why would this cause an error I have no idea. > > Validating http://www.cos-one.com/vbn.htm > Error : "DTDs other than base allowed only if CONCUR YES or > EXPLICIT YES" I'm getting a 404 on that page. However, it seems to me that you've used more than one DOCTYPE declaration. Only one is allowed in HTML (and XHTML). -- -- David Håsäther
Henri Sivonen wrote: > That was not intended as name calling. Sorry. "SGMList" was the noun I > came up with for someone who has been involved with SGML a lot. I should > have said "SGML expert" or something like that. I think that Terje was not referring to "SGMList", but to the use of words like "pedant" (saivartelija). > But isn't it pedantic that when Relaxed is presented, the focus tends to > be "That's not a validator. Don't call it a validator!" (even though it > is according to the RELAX NG and Schematron sense of "validator") > instead of focus being on the fact that Nalevka's schemas capture the > constraints expressed in W3C spec prose better than the normative DTDs? I'd have to disagree on the focus of the discussion (most of it I've carried out privately with Petr). I'm sure that everybody welcomes new software such as Relaxed. The issue concerning it's name is just one aspect of making it better and more accurate. >> That is, saying >> "Relaxed - a RELAX NG and Schematron validator for (X)HTML" >> instead of "Relaxed - the HTML validator" would >> make the title a lot easier to defend against pedants. Validator or not, RELAX NG and Schematron are too cryptic to be included in the name of the service. Osmo
On Sep 2, 2005, at 12:48, Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> But isn't it pedantic that when Relaxed is presented, the focus tends >> to be "That's not a validator. Don't call it a validator!" (even >> though it is according to the RELAX NG and Schematron sense of >> "validator") instead of focus being on the fact that Nalevka's >> schemas capture the constraints expressed in W3C spec prose better >> than the normative DTDs? > > I'd have to disagree on the focus of the discussion (most of it I've > carried out privately with Petr). I'm sure that everybody welcomes new > software such as Relaxed. I was not referring to only this discussion but to reactions to Relaxed in general. When I mentioned Relax in c.i.w.a.h, no one commented about the service being useful or anything like that. The only thing that got attention was that it should not be called a validator. > The issue concerning it's name is just one aspect of making it better > and more accurate. I agree that not calling it "the HTML validator" would help a lot--in particular by steering the discussion away from the topic of the accuracy of the title. > Validator or not, RELAX NG and Schematron are too cryptic to be > included in the name of the service. I disagree, but without qualifying the word "validator" with those names, the "it is not a validator" issue will come up again and again drawing attention away from the substance of the service. -- -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen <at> iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
This is a bug report for the record. I used "Validate by Direct Input" today. I got the message: No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8. Given that the validation form is UTF-8, every reasonable browser will actually send data to the server in UTF-8. The result of that message is therefore correct, but the message shouldn't be there. Even more to the point, providing a charset in a <meta> element validates correctly, but produces garbage. Try putting the following into the form (short, but actually valid): -------- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <title>Hello World!</title> <meta http-equiv='Content-Type' content='text/html; charset=shift_jis'><p>今 日は、世界! -------- This validates, but the Japanese text turns into garbage. The right thing here is to produce a message such as: "Encoding declared is shift_jis, but validating as UTF-8 because uploaded as UTF-8." (and then actually do that) Regards, Martin.
* Henri Sivonen wrote: >I suppose there is merit to asking "What does this look like?" and then >asking immediately if it is valid according to the answer to the >previous question if the validator tells the user what schema it is >validating against is and the schema is still provided by the user or >the validation service and the document cannot covertly inject rules of >its own. Every time you feed a application/xml or similar resource to an XML processor you do exactly that. It's more a matter of determining the rules that apply to a specific data object and checking for each rule whether the data object meets it. In theory a very simple process though in practise quite complicated, typically due to poor specs. >> You would likely be able to use the Validator as a general purpose >> RELAX NG Validator but it's unlikely you will be required to select >> the schema for each validation. It's not just the authors who want >> to check a document, it's also customers of web design companies >> who want to check whether their produce proper code, and not all >> customers are aware of all the technical details relevant here. > >So valid FooML is good enough if valid SVG 1.2 was ordered? The main requirement here is that the Validator is very clear about how to read the result for any request. Another requirement is that the Validator should do what we want and what the users want. I am not sure whether "is x y?" is actually a good question to ask the Validator. -- -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern <at> hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
After using the W3C Markup Validator, I encountered 8 separate errors from a section of my site that is under construction that doesn’t even exist!
My site has 117 lines, all of which were meticulously coded by myself, and all 8 errors are are on lines 118 and 119. All errors are reference over to what are essentially bad links to 1px images for http://geo.yahoo.com/ . What’s more, is that these two Easter Egg type pictures that I had never realized were present on my site, are also playing havoc with my ability to keep packet requests down to the beautiful minimum that I had conceived when I first began my rewrite.
Has anyone else encountered this, and found a way to fix it? I would really like to be able to toss on my validation “awards”, seeing as web design is one of the services I offer through my company, and this is more than a bit annoying…lol If you know how to fix this issue, please feel free to email me at webmaster <at> consultantsea.com, as I am already on too many forums to remember them all ;)
Dr. Troy C. Beglinger, O.M.
CEO/ Senior Project Manager
The ConsultantSea, www.consultantsea.com
"Start sailing on calmer waters, drift into the ConsultantSea."
Troy Beglinger wrote: > My site has 117 lines, all of which were meticulously coded by myself, and > all 8 errors are are on lines 118 and 119. All errors are reference over to > what are essentially bad links to 1px images for http://geo.yahoo.com/ . > > Has anyone else encountered this, and found a way to fix it? Yes, you either need to accept the validation errors or switch to a host that won't mess with your markup in any way. You could also complain directly to your host and try to get them to fix the errors, but I doubt you'll get very far with that anyway. -- -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Hello! I'm writing to you because of some information I've heard about using W3C Validator. In fact I was accustomed to your product, but recently I've heard that documents that passed W3C validator didn't have to be validate at all. On few pages I've found a link to other validator written by Christoph Schneegans (http://schneegans.de/sv/) which ought to be more accurate. I've tested it on one of my XHTML 1.1 documents (converted to XHTML 1.0 because Shneegans XML schema validator doesn't support version 1.1) and really - it pointed a number of errors in my document that passed W3C validation. I would like to know why it's like that? I fully trust W3C Validator, and I wish this situation won't change. I'm looking forward to your reply. Piotr Nowicki