3992 2006-11-20 18:05:50 +0000 non-unix newlines confuse the parser 2007-04-02 06:31:01 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator Parser HEAD PC Linux RESOLVED FIXED http://www.aadmm.de/en/mathml.xhtml P2 normal 0.8.0 1 matthias.mauch ot bjoern www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 12971 0 matthias.mauch 2006-11-20 18:05:50 +0000 It seems that W3C Unicorn have problems in following situation: Profil: General Conformance Check Address: http://www.aadmm.de/en/mathml.xhtml Doctype: XHTML 1.1 plus MathML 2.0 plus SVG 1.1 Check failed... If I test this page with http://validator.w3.org/ then I get passed validation "This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1 plus MathML 2.0 plus SVG 1.1" Is this Doctype not available in Unicorn, because I can't select it in the Profil "Validate Markup (HTML, etc.)"? 12976 1 ot 2006-11-21 00:58:00 +0000 This is a problem with the development version of the markup validator (which the unicorn test instance uses) with some types of documents, perhaps due to some specific line ending types. 14296 2 ot 2007-03-02 03:06:50 +0000 Björn, could this be a bug in S::P::O? It seems that check's preparse does find the doctype, and although the document given as a test case has the particularity of having the XML decl and doctype decl on the same line, I am not aware that it is forbidden. I don't think it's a bug with check, nor does it look like a bug in OpenSP - see http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/0.7/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aadmm.de%2Fen%2Fmathml.xhtml so I'm suspecting a problem in S:P:O. Please look into it. If this is a bug in SPO, closing this bug with a pointer to the SPO bug tracking URI would be good. 14455 3 ot 2007-03-16 00:39:20 +0000 OK, I think I found and fixed the issue: newlines. Apparently the fact that the document mentioned above is using DOS newlines was the trigger. Converting the newlines to unix ones gave a more expected validation results. I have a tentative fix http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-cvs/2007Mar/0082.html which hopefully does the right thing by converting newlines systematically. Apparently it fixes the issue for the validator. I still think there might be some bug with SPO, though. Matthias, is it OK to save your mathml.xhtml document as test case in our test suite? Thanks 14607 4 matthias.mauch 2007-03-30 17:15:04 +0000 > Matthias, is it OK to save your mathml.xhtml document as test case in our test > suite? Yes, it's ok. I have no problems if you save my document as test case. 14620 5 ot 2007-04-02 06:31:01 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > Yes, it's ok. I have no problems if you save my document as test case. Wonderful. I've added the file as test case, and can close the bug. The version of the validator with the fix will go in beta test within days. Thank you olivier