Re: [VE][70] OMITTAG NO error

Am 31.05.2007 um 05:09 schrieb Daniel:
> <td width="104" height="109" valign="top">
> <!-- Begin Official PayPal Seal -->
> <a href="https://www.paypal.com/us/verified/pal=customercare% 
> 40all4boomers%2ecom" target="_blank">
> <img src="http://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/icon/verification_seal.gif"  
> border="0" alt="Official PayPal Seal" />
> <!-- End Official PayPal Seal -->
> &nbsp;
> </td>

You only have written a start tag <a> and no end tag </a>, which  
closes the anchor element <a></a>.

--

-- 
Sierk Bornemann

[ANN] W3C Markup Validator 0.8.0, Beta 2

== Beta test for the W3C Markup Validator - version 0.8.0 beta 2 ==

The new version of the W3C Markup Validator, to be released soon as  
version 0.8.0, is entering its second beta test period.

http://validator-test.w3.org/

The W3C Markup Validation Service, also known as "HTML validator", is  
a popular free service and software providing Web content authors a  
way to check Web documents.

The previous stable version (v0.7.4) of the validator was released  
last November, but work on the version 0.8 had been going for a very  
long time, and is now reaching maturity. Since the end of April, the  
new validator has been at beta stage, and with a number of bug fixes  
and UI polishing, we are now starting a second beta phase. If you  
would like to help with this beta test, please see the section  
"Testing and reporting issues" below.

** Changes **

There were many changes between the latest release of the validator  
and the current Beta.
For a list of changes between the release 0.7.4 and the first beta of  
0.8.0, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2007Apr/0074.html

Below are the changes between 0.8.0 beta 1 and beta 2:

Re: Error message and charset=utf-8

Hi Andreas,

On May 30, 2007, at 23:52 , Andreas Prilop wrote:
> Are there any new insights about error messages for documents
> with encoding UTF-8?
> Who is to blame?
>
> This is the test case:
>  http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/offset.html

Unfortunately, this still escapes me. Different platforms give  
different results, and I am yet to pinpoint the library reponsible  
for this most annoying discrepancy.

--

-- 
olivier

Re: Problems validating XML

On May 31, 2007, at 10:53 , Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 10:21 07/05/31, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> It would be trivial to add a checkbox to the current tree that  
>> means "use the XML parser for this".  I can provide a patch for  
>> that if you like.
>
> I didn't want to go there, because I think automatic detection,
> where it can sensibly be done, is better in this case

If indeed automatic detection is reliable, then I'd also prefer it  
over adding another radio button to the UI. That said, I suppose that  
automatic detection via the xml prolog would not work with XML  
languages that omit said prolog, so maybe both implementations will  
be useful in the end.

--

-- 
olivier

Re: Problems validating XML

Re: Error message and charset=utf-8

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, olivier Thereaux wrote:

>> This is the test case:
>> http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/offset.html
>
> Unfortunately, this still escapes me. Different platforms give different
> results, and I am yet to pinpoint the library reponsible for this most
> annoying discrepancy.

I get a correct error message (i.e. </a> marked red)
with http://validator-test.w3.org/ .

Re: Problems validating XML

Well.... I am personally convinced auto-detection is reliable.  However, 
in the event that you do not want to include the XML PI in your XML 
document (it is not required) a button would be nice too.  I am happy to 
implement auto-detection AND a button.  Button would be something like:

Parsing Mode:  o  auto-detect
                        o  SGML
                        o  XML

Any thoughts on which approach is preferable?

olivier Thereaux wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2007, at 10:53 , Martin Duerst wrote:
>> At 10:21 07/05/31, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> It would be trivial to add a checkbox to the current tree that means 
>>> "use the XML parser for this".  I can provide a patch for that if 
>>> you like.
>>
>> I didn't want to go there, because I think automatic detection,
>> where it can sensibly be done, is better in this case
>
> If indeed automatic detection is reliable, then I'd also prefer it 
> over adding another radio button to the UI. That said, I suppose that 
> automatic detection via the xml prolog would not work with XML 
> languages that omit said prolog, so maybe both implementations will be 
> useful in the end.
>

--

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane <at> aptest.com

Re: extensions

On Wed, 30 May 2007, William Breathitt Gray wrote:

> Is the file extension "xhtml" required, as part of the xhtml strict
> specifications?

No.

> Or is the extension not important?

It is important for Internet Explorer 6. (I don't know about IE 7.)
Compare
 http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/ruby-with-dir.xhtml
 http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/ruby-with-dir.x.html
with IE 6. These two are exactly the same - except for the URL.

--

-- 
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

RE: [VE][70] OMITTAG NO error

Re: Problems validating XML

Dear Greg,

Would you be able to clarify your message a little?
Hard as I try, I am really having trouble understanding what you meant.

In particular:

* what is that w3.org quote? What is its context? How is it relevant  
to the e-mail thread we are in?

* Which part of the w3.org site did you go to and "looked horrible"?  
If you do not give any more details, it will be really difficult for  
us to assess and to fix the issue you ran into.

FWIW, I'm thinking whoever told you that w3.org was using some kind  
of fancy proprietary "bullet point" misled you.

Also, if the problems you had were on the www.w3.org web site, you  
should probably report issues to site-comments <at> w3.org. The www- 
validator list is for discussions on w3c validation tools.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/

Thank you.

-- 
olivier

On Jun 1, 2007, at 17:03 , Greg Sabin wrote:

> Well just to let you know, It was said to my on my web site not  
> validating , that the program tests code and such , and 1 of the  
> people who has a w3.org email address said '' why would I want to  
> have to down load IE 7 or some thing just to look at your web site  
> correctly or have to download additional content ''
> and with that being said, Ive been wondering why when I go to  
> w3.org the web site looks so horrible with dollar signs and such  
> all over the place , and I was told by submit tools after they  
> looked at your web site that all of the dollar signs and such are  
> actually bullet points my browser has no reference for , that were  
> added from some additional content that can be down loaded and that  
> they at submit tools have the same type of program so they can see  
> the things I can not.
> So in conclusion , should you not then ask your self's , why would  
> I (yes me), want to have to down load 6000 plus additional fonts ,  
> bullet points and such , just so I can see your web site correctly?
> I think that's what my grandfather used to call a hypocrite , but  
> since I just found out I thought id let ya all know.
> Greg
>