|
|
Posted by Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 08/11/06 23:28
In alt.html, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote
> on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:36:01 GMT
> <RS5Dg.238039$mF2.16679@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>> In alt.html, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 Aug 2006 02:45:53 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager of
>>>>>> IE)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> Failed validation, 67 errors
>>>
>>> Actually, this is a bug in the W3C's validator. It's parser can't
>>> handle XHTML style syntax in HTML 4 documents and throws bogus
>>> errors.
>>
>> Bogus? No, HTML and XHTML are not the same. If you are writing with
>> an HTML doctype, use HTML syntax; if a XHTML doctype, use XHTML
>> syntax. They are not the same, therefore these are not bogus errors.
>
> All right, dumb question...why is XHTML even an issue here? The
> given link is HTML 4.0 Transitional.
The given link (the blog link above) is HTML 4.0 Traditional, but
written with XHTML syntax. <shrug>
<meta name="GENERATOR"
content="CommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60209.2598)" />
Maybe we need to blame this Generator? The above link now has 105
errors:
<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.msdn.com%2Fcwilso%2Farchive%2F2006%2F08%2F10%2F694584.aspx>
> Unless the author is actually
> referring to one of the test pages implied in
Can't say. Most of the thread is not in alt.html.
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|