Technical DOCTYPE question for technophiles

[Mark Parnell]

I would have no problem with saying that it is not a validator even if it
did that. The point is that it reports as _errors_ things that are not
reportable markup errors. If it reported them as warnings, we might say
that it is a validator with some extra features (as the W3C and WDG
validators actually are).

I did think of that, and had the answer to my question been yes, I was
going to mention it. Since the answer was no, the point is moot - it
shouldn't be called a validator anyway.

I downloaded it and played with it quickly yesterday, and I found it
interesting that there is a "standards compliant check" mode - since it
doesn't check the HTML against the DTD[1], I wonder what "standards" it
is checking against.

[1] Yes, I know that the W3C documents are only recommendations, not
standards.

 

[Albert Wiersch]

http://online.htmlvalidator.com/php/onlinevallite.php says:

"The character reference "ト" is not recognized. Did you misspell
it? Did you forget to end the reference with a semicolon?"

Ummm... of course I didn't miss the semicolon -- the semicolon is right
there in the bit you quoted!

Ditto: "The character reference "ビ" is not recognized. Did you
misspell it? Did you forget to end the reference with a semicolon?"

Ditto: "The character reference "–" is not recognized. Did you
misspell it? Did you forget to end the reference with a semicolon?"

All them be proper character references.

Hi Toby,

Thank you. I had a configuration option for the online validator set to not
allow hexadecimal character references. I have now fixed this and have
improved the error message in case this situation should happen again. It
will now say:
The character reference "ト" is not recognized. If you want to use
hexadecimal references, then be sure to enable this option in the Validator
Engine Options.

Albert

 

[Toby Inkster]

The character reference "ト" is not recognized. If you want to use
hexadecimal references, then be sure to enable this option in the Validator
Engine Options.

Ah -- so the error is in the "validator" and not on the page.

 

[Albert Wiersch]

Ah -- so the error is in the "validator" and not on the page.

No, it was a configuration option that wasn't set the way it should have
been for the online validator.

 

[Richard Rundle]

No, it was a configuration option that wasn't set the way it should have
been for the online validator.

So, exactly as Toby says then.

 

[Albert Wiersch]

So, exactly as Toby says then.

No. It was an "error" in the configuration (options), not the program
itself.

Albert

 

[Andy Dingley]

An HTML validator is simply a program that checks HTML documents
for problems.

Thankyou for making it so explicitly clear why I should _never_ buy one
of your products.

 

[Neal]

It would be wrong to call a DOCTYPE declaration valid, but yes, both
are correct and means the exact same thing.

As you may know, the first parameter of a DOCTYPE declaration is the
document element (or root element). Since HTML uses NAMECASE GENERAL
YES in the NAMING section of the SGML declaration, "html" will be case-
folded to "HTML".

Thanks for giving a more correct and to-the-point answer than Yucca, who
sidestepped the issue for Usenet supremacy reasons.

 

[Neal]

Someone might find it odd that the seller of a purported "HTML validator"
does not know such a thing, and does not know where to find authoritative
answers on such matters. How can a validator do anything if it does not
even know what to do with a document type declaration?

As far as professional HTML folks go, you know I agree wholeheartedly. But
how does this response serve the archive? What of the poor sap who,
searching on this same question yet not being a pro, discovering the
answer to his query?

WEhile you serve your Usenet reputation, Yucca, you do not serve Usenet
with your response.

 

[Mark Parnell]

WEhile you serve your Usenet reputation, Yucca, you do not serve Usenet
with your response.

In Jukka's defence, he *did* actually answer the question, in the part
of his post you snipped: