This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 8002 - outpost personal firewall plugin "Ads" (Adware remover) replaces "valid W3C"-logo embedded in an <a>-Element with the text "[AD-Size]" if the using the correct image-size-attributes width="88" height="31".
Summary: outpost personal firewall plugin "Ads" (Adware remover) replaces "valid W3C"-...
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Validator
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Website (show other bugs)
Version: HEAD
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
QA Contact: qa-dev tracking
URL: http://www.orcus.de
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-10-22 07:49 UTC by Arnim Jablonowski
Modified: 2009-10-23 13:03 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description Arnim Jablonowski 2009-10-22 07:49:33 UTC 
outpost personal firewall plugin "Ads" (Adware remover) replaces "valid W3C"-logo embedded in an <a>-Element with the text "[AD-Size]" if the using the correct image-size-attributes width="88" height="31".

The image is replaced by the plugin, as the used size 88x31 matches one of the sizes defined in the plugins defaults.

As we are generating our website via XML/XSLT the url-snippet we us IS DIFFERENT TO THE ONE PROPOSSED (see below) by the validator but I guess the will happen with the default-snippet too.

Workaround - setting the width-attribute to "89" (without modifying the real image) show's the image again to the user. (removing the 88x31 from the default-list of the plugin would only 'repair' my local copy - other users still wont see the logo)

As all the Validator-Logos show the same size (we are using the "valid CSS Level 2.1 to - same problem) this will probaly happen to the other logos as well.

Our generated (workaround-) versions of the validator-references look like this:


<a class="float_lnk" href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img src="Entities/icons/valid-html401-blue.png" alt="" width="89" height="31" title="valid HTML 4.01 Transitional" style="margin-right:5px;margin-bottom:5px;" ></a>

<a class="float_lnk" href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer"><img src="Entities/icons/vcss-blue.gif" alt="" width="89" height="31" title="valid CSS level 2.1" style="margin-right:5px;margin-bottom:5px;" ></a>
Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2009-10-23 12:50:37 UTC 
I don't think there's anything the validator should even try to do about this.  If a user chooses to use a product that does (or is configured to do) things like this to certain sized images, they get what they asked for.
Comment 2 Arnim Jablonowski 2009-10-23 13:03:09 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think there's anything the validator should even try to do about this. 
> If a user chooses to use a product that does (or is configured to do) things
> like this to certain sized images, they get what they asked for.
> 

Hmm ... so it's ok - from your point of view - that the "this is a web-site that cares about the standards" - will not be visible to lot's of visitors.

I guess there could/should be some sort of hint at least that using the correct extension will hide the logo from users...