Jukka K. Korpela | 2 Jun 2012 09:53
Picon
Picon

Re: HTML Testcase for W3 validator

2012-05-31 15:44, David Dorward wrote:

> Character data is allowed directly inside the body element in XHTML 1.0 Transitional [...]
>
> It isn't, however, in XHTML 1.0 Strict, so if you were using that instead of the
> Transitional DTD then the validator would have flagged it.

Yes, in Strict, <body><p>text</p>.<p>text</p></body> is a syntax error.

However, the usefulness of this, in detecting typing mistakes, is 
limited. Typically, authors wrap content in <div> containers, for the 
purposes of styling (and scripting). Consider a typical scenario:

<body>
   <div class="header">some stuff</div>
   <div class="nav">some stuff</div>
   <div class="content">
     <p>text</p>.<p>text</p>
   </div>
   <div class="footer">some stuff</div>
</body>

There will be no error message about the "." character between the 
paragraphs even in Strict, because now it's not text content directly 
inside <body>. There's the intervening <div> element, and inside it, 
direct text content is allowed.

(X)HTML syntax is too permissive to let us catch issues like 
<p>text</p>.<p>text</p> in general.

(Continue reading)

Mike Turpin | 2 Jun 2012 10:00
Favicon

Re: HTML Testcase for W3 validator

Hi Jukka,

Thanks very much for that explanation. Your explanation was really
clear and helpful.

Sounds like it would need to be a warning lint check in the w3 HTML
validator to be consistently detected, but I understand that this is
not trivial to implement.

Do you know an "HTML gotchas" page anywhere, that lists some of these problems?

Regards,

Mike

Dave Kennard | 3 Jun 2012 23:16
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

[VE][html5] HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema

I'm currently converting an XHTML + RDFa document to HTML5 + RDFa. When I run the document through the validator, it gives various errors such as
RDFa Core attribute datatype is not allowed in HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 Lite documents. Consider checking against the HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema instead.
However, I cannot find out how to validate against the HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema?

Thanks

Dave
G Mawdsley | 3 Jun 2012 17:08
Picon

[VE][344] Add Subject Here


Validating http://www.gemmamawdsley.com/
Error [344]: "no document type declaration; implying X"
Jukka K. Korpela | 4 Jun 2012 15:05
Picon
Picon

Re: [VE][344] Add Subject Here

2012-06-03 18:08, G Mawdsley wrote:

> Validating http://www.gemmamawdsley.com/
> Error [344]: "no document type declaration; implying X"

The error message is rather self-explanatory. You should declare a 
document type that reflects the version of HTML that you try to comply 
with; in this case, HTML 4.01 Frameset.

On the other hand, you frameset document exists apparently just to hide 
the real URL of the site. Not a good idea.

Yucca

Michael[tm] Smith | 5 Jun 2012 06:28
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [VE][html5] HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema

Dave Kennard <showerheadsuk <at> hotmail.com>, 2012-06-03 22:16 +0100:

> I'm currently converting an XHTML + RDFa document to HTML5 + RDFa. When I
> run the document through the validator, it gives various errors such as
> 
>    RDFa Core attribute datatype is not allowed in HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 Lite
>    documents. Consider checking against the HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema
>    instead.
> 
> However, I cannot find out how to validate against the HTML5 + RDFa 1.1
> schema?

At http://validator.w3.org/nu/

Use the Options button and choose the Preset value that has RDFa 1.1

  --Mike

--

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike

Stéphane Corlosquet | 5 Jun 2012 07:05
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [VE][html5] HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema

Mike,

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike <at> w3.org> wrote:
Dave Kennard <showerheadsuk <at> hotmail.com>, 2012-06-03 22:16 +0100:

> I'm currently converting an XHTML + RDFa document to HTML5 + RDFa. When I
> run the document through the validator, it gives various errors such as
>
>    RDFa Core attribute datatype is not allowed in HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 Lite
>    documents. Consider checking against the HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema
>    instead.
>
> However, I cannot find out how to validate against the HTML5 + RDFa 1.1
> schema?

At http://validator.w3.org/nu/

Use the Options button and choose the Preset value that has RDFa 1.1

What's the reason for not triggering that preset automatically based on the presence of RDFa 1.1 attributes? obviously the validator is able to detect that <at> datatype is RDFa 1.1, so why not just switch to the appropriate preset?

Steph.
Michael[tm] Smith | 5 Jun 2012 07:26
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [VE][html5] HTML5 + RDFa 1.1 schema

Hi Stéphane,

>  <at> 2012-06-04 22:05 -0700:
> What's the reason for not triggering that preset automatically based on the
> presence of RDFa 1.1 attributes? obviously the validator is able to detect
> that  <at> datatype is RDFa 1.1, so why not just switch to the appropriate
> preset?

The validator isn't capable of switching to a different schema in midstream
at parse time or at validation time based on the presence of particular
attributes or whatever. 

  --Mike

--

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike

Bob Pohpe | 4 Jun 2012 22:47
Favicon

whois

Hi,
I added the w3c logo on https://soescrow.com/whois/index.php whois page but that navigation on my site is https. Should I link the w3c logo to https://www.w3.org or should I link to http://www.w3.org. What would be the ideal solution?
Best Regards
Peter


NOTE: Whenever possible, give the address of the document you were checking.
David Dorward | 5 Jun 2012 17:00
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: whois

On 4 Jun 2012, at 21:47, Bob Pohpe wrote:
> I added the w3c logo on https://soescrow.com/whois/index.php whois page but that navigation on my site
is https. Should I link the w3c logo tohttps://www.w3.org or should I link to http://www.w3.org. What
would be the ideal solution?

This doesn't seem relative to this mailing list, but for what it is worth the logo policy can be found at http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308

It states that it must be a link to "http://www.w3.org/". 

(It also states "The icon must not be used in any manner which implies W3C sponsorship or endorsement of your
product, service, or Internet site.", which makes your usage seem a bit iffy to me. IANAL).

Contact details for the W3C Communications Team (who would be much better positioned to answer your
questions on this subject then the Validation service community) are available from the above URI.

--

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk


Gmane