Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris

(ichimunki) Re x 3: HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation

by ichimunki (Priest)
on Dec 29, 2001 at 02:34 UTC ( #135004=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: (ichimunki) Re: HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation
in thread HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation

The doctype in that page is not what I would expect to see from a typical output, it lacks the usual version numbering and "strict", "transitional", etc information. That is causing the validator to assume the worst about the page. And I don't see anything on that page that wouldn't validate other than the header itself, unless BGCOLOR wasn't a valid attribute in 2.0.

FWIW, I just submitted one of my own HTML docs and found that it does not validate, but because the header says the doctype is XHTML basic, and the header itself uses the lang attribute, which is not in basic apparently. So your point is perhaps valid, but this may even be fixed in newer versions of CGI (I'm on whatever ActiveState included with ActivePerl).
  • Comment on (ichimunki) Re x 3: HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://135004]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (8)
As of 2018-06-20 13:32 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Should cpanminus be part of the standard Perl release?

    Results (116 votes). Check out past polls.