W3C Markup Validator v0.7.0 Released

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

W3C Markup Validator v0.7.0 Released

moltar

7:12 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Markup Validator [validator.w3.org] v0.7.0 Released

Released version 0.7.0, including improvements in User Interface and feedback mechanisms, support for installation on Windows platform, better support for both W3C and non-W3C document types, usage of templates for validation results, and a number of bug fixes.

mattglet

11:29 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is it just me, or is it SUPER slow?

cziffra

12:51 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

It isn't just you, it's extremely slow. I'm also finding that code that was previously valid is no longer validating correctly.

encyclo

1:59 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I assume that the speed will improve, because it is verging on unusable at the moment. cziffra, have you got an example of the kind of markup which no longer validates with the new version?

cziffra

2:17 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

encyclo,

After further investigation, it appears that this is an issue with ArticleLive rather than the validator, although it does look like the validator is more strict than it was in the last version. I had modified ArticleLive so it would produce valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional. From what I can tell, ArticleLive is stripping out some slashes in the doctype. My source code contains this, which is correct:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

But after the code is processed, I get this (note the single slashes in the top line):

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-/W3C/DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional/EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

The validator didn't have a problem with that previously, but does now.

StepOne

2:27 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have an example of code that vailidated before but now gives me an error.

The error reported is:
"Contradictory Parse Modes Detected!
The MIME Media Type() indicated parse mode should be SGML, but the DOCTYPE Declaration indicates XML mode. Using SGML mode based on the Content-Type header"

It takes exception to xhtml's back slash in the meta statements ie. />

I had been using the following header:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"
lang="en">
<head>
<title>XXXXXXXX</title>
<meta name="description" content="XXXXXXXX" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<meta name="author" content="StepOne" />

If I strip out all the meta statements, it's happy.
Granted most of the meta statements perhaps don't serve much purpose now.

Neither Tidy or CSE HTML validator Lite report errors.

What is the MIME Media Type() it's talking about and what should I do, any ideas?

encyclo

3:02 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

StepOne, I haven't been able to reproduce your error. It looks like the problem could be connected to the defined media type in the HTTP header which is sent before the page is parsed. Are you validating an online document or an uploaded one? Are you using a non-standard file extension for your page?

The MIME media type is the type of document: usually

text/html

for most HTML documents, but it can also be

application/xhtml+xml

application/xml

or even

text/xml

StepOne

3:19 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for getting back to me encyclo.

I had been using the W3C validation option within Bradsoft's TopStyle HTML/CSS editor and got the errors mentioned in my last post.

I've just used W3C's Validate by URL service on a page that had previously produced errors - it validated. So perhaps it's got more to do with TopStyle than W3C, I don't know.

I use the standard .html file extension for my pages. As others have already reported, W3C validation at the moment is very, very slow.

encyclo

4:03 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK, the problem will be that TopStyle is sending the page to the validator directly, not via a server where any MIME types are defined in HTTP headers. The validator made an assumption that the page was XML by looking at the doctype, then it revised its opinion when seeing the Content-Type meta tag.

It's difficult to say if this is a bug with the validator or not - if it is sniffing doctypes to determine MIME type, then yes it could be considered a bug - however it is more likely to be a confusion due to the specific way TopStyle is sending the page.