14 2002-10-25 02:04:14 +0000 XHTML Detection is over-eager. 2008-12-01 03:03:31 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator check 0.6.0b1 All All NEW http://www.damowmow.com/playground/html-not-xml-2.html P2 normal 1.0 24 739 1500 1 link ot aaz ian www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 16 0 link 2002-10-25 02:04:14 +0000 Reported by Ian Hickson: The following document: http://www.damowmow.com/playground/html-not-xml-2.html ....is a valid HTML 4.01 document. However, with the new validator, I get the following error message: | This Page Is NOT Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict! | | Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML | parser. | | 1. Line 2, column 7: S separator in comment declaration | | <!-- -- --> | ^ This is probably a bug in the XHTML detection code. Furthermore, when I force it to be handled as HTML 4.01, it still gets autodetected as XHTML. 96 1 link 2002-10-27 11:40:00 +0000 This case is pathological and compounded by the differing comment syntax between SGML and XML. AFAICT, the root cause is that HTML::Parser doesn't understand the comment syntax and so detects the XHTML DOCTYPE, forcing the Validator into XML mode. Any fix for this needs to begin by fixing HTML::Parser's comment parser and then we can see what this leaves us with in "check". This probably also means we'll have to fix Bug #24 first. Setting blocker on Bug #24 and target to 0.7.0 to revisit the issue then. 3398 2 ot 2005-05-12 01:19:47 +0000 I doubt we'll get around to fixing this bug for 0.7.0. Terje, What do you think? 3399 3 ian 2005-05-12 02:03:56 +0000 According to the HTML WG, a UA is non-compliant if it handles an XHTML document sent as text/html as XHTML; such a UA must apparently handle the document as HTML regardless of what it looks like. # [...] documents served as text/html should be treated as HTML and not as XHTML. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024.html But I don't know if they meant to include validators in that statement. 5362 4 ot 2005-08-05 00:45:20 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > I doubt we'll get around to fixing this bug for 0.7.0. indeed. 7664 5 murali1287 2006-01-06 08:33:55 +0000 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12 *** 11312 6 ot 2006-08-30 02:26:05 +0000 adding dependency on Bug #1500 too, as the switching to xml mode may end up being decided not by the doctype but by the media type. 15254 7 ot 2007-05-31 01:04:01 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > According to the HTML WG, a UA is non-compliant if it handles an XHTML document > sent as text/html as XHTML; such a UA must apparently handle the document as > HTML regardless of what it looks like. According to the WG, XHTML is always XML, and should be validated as such. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2007Apr/0175.html > But I don't know if they meant to include validators in that statement. Apparently not. 19347 8 524 venkiktr 2008-03-07 05:35:38 +0000 Created attachment 524 Hello india bug QA 19348 9 525 venkiktr 2008-03-07 05:37:11 +0000 Created attachment 525 Hello india bug QA 19349 10 526 venkiktr 2008-03-07 05:37:39 +0000 Created attachment 526 Hello india bug QA 524 2008-03-07 05:35:38 +0000 2008-03-07 05:35:38 +0000 Hello india Buglist_QA.txt text/plain 0 venkiktr 525 2008-03-07 05:37:11 +0000 2008-03-07 05:37:11 +0000 Hello india 317200623702PMbhumika_chawla.jpg image/pjpeg 0 venkiktr 526 2008-03-07 05:37:39 +0000 2008-03-07 05:37:39 +0000 Hello india 317200623702PMbhumika_chawla.jpg image/pjpeg 0 venkiktr