Forum Moderators: not2easy
[jigsaw.w3.org...]
And what's up with the new "wooly icon [jigsaw.w3.org]"?
Either they made some changes or someone ripped through all my CSS files and figured out all the background color issues and made them valid for me. Santa? ;)
hey, don't worry we all knew those warnings were not really warnings ;)
Suzy
[edited by: SuzyUK at 1:50 am (utc) on Jan. 6, 2007]
Unicorn [qa-dev.w3.org]
I wish you could ask it to ignore things like & or = in linked URLs.
Unicorn calls it an error when an affiliate URL contains characters it doesn't like
The older validators would do the same, as you are probably seeing real errors in the markup. The issue is with unescaped ampersands: the & symbol is used primarily for entity references such as
You need to correct the ampersands by changing this:
http://example.com/page.php?foo=bar&bar=footo:
http://example.com/page.php?foo=bar[b]&[/b]bar=fooUnicorn is clearly in its early stages of development, but it is showing good promise. I'm a bit confused though about its info message about badly-formed XML, even on well-formed XHTML documents. The reasons behind the message are not clear.
I strive to build pages that validate in every other way, but I don't have the resources to run around correcting URLs that have been supplied by my merchants. Also, in some cases, the agreements that affiliates sign specifically forbid any changes.
It would make a lot more sense for merchants to make that correction at the source.
I strive to build pages that validate in every other way, but I don't have the resources to run around correcting URLs that have been supplied by my merchants. Also, in some cases, the agreements that affiliates sign specifically forbid any changes.
There's a difference between a URL in which an ampersand appears and the encoding for it in HTML, in which for validity it has to be translated to the corresponding entity. If you encode it, you aren't changing it.
That said, I'm aware generally merchants supply not just the URLs but whole blocks of code in which incorrectly encoded URLs appear. But I can't see that correcting their errors would amount to a change they'd object to since the requests that hit their site are as specified.
Another issue is whether you are permitted to translate such blocks of code to correct XHTML or not. Personally I take the view that as long as your aren't attempting to circumvent or exploit their interfaces in any way, they are unlikely to object. After all, why would they?
