4848 2007-07-11 09:24:55 +0000 warn about incorrect public/system identifiers combinations, or system identifiers that go 404 2008-01-31 06:31:30 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator Parser 0.8.0b2 All All RESOLVED FIXED http://www.codelyoko.cn P2 normal 0.9.0 1 Siramizu link www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 15775 0 Siramizu 2007-07-11 09:24:55 +0000 When I use   or © it said XML Parsing Error: Entity \'nbsp\' not defined. 15780 1 ot 2007-07-11 11:11:43 +0000 The validator can not find the entity because your DOCTYPE is (partly) wrong. The correct doctype for XHTML 1.1 is: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> If you found the doctype you used somewhere on the web, you should probably warn the webpage owners that they are providing bogus advice. I am keeping this bug open and renaming - ideally the validator should have warned about the bogus doctype. 15781 2 Siramizu 2007-07-11 12:03:43 +0000 Thanks very much. I think it\\\'s a mistake made by my friend while he modify the DOCTYPE from XHTML 1.0 Strict to XHTML 1.1 . 18375 3 ot 2008-01-17 08:11:37 +0000 Got a fix in CVS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-cvs/2008Jan/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-cvs/2008Jan/0033.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-cvs/2008Jan/0032.html Test: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/4848-html40-transitional_FPI-SI-mismatch.html The fix will be in the next validator release. 18377 4 link 2008-01-17 08:20:17 +0000 Just a minor stylistic note; saying the DOCTYPE is broken is needlessly obtuse. Rather, say that the DOCTYPE is Inconsistent, has a mismatch or something along those lines. Be specific, without getting verbose, and summarize the explanatory text from below in the message heading. 18379 5 ot 2008-01-17 11:17:37 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > Just a minor stylistic note; saying the DOCTYPE is broken is needlessly > obtuse. Rather, say that the DOCTYPE is Inconsistent, has a mismatch or > something along those lines. Be specific, without getting verbose, and > summarize the explanatory text from below in the message heading. Ack, you are right. I was trying for the wording to not be too complex but ended up making it short and ugly. Updated the wording in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-cvs/2008Jan/0039.html Thoughts? I note that I still need to copy the wording to other warning templates when we're happy with it, so I'm temporarily reopening the bug. 18648 6 ot 2008-01-31 06:31:30 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > Thoughts? I note that I still need to copy the wording to other warning > templates when we're happy with it, so I'm temporarily reopening the bug. Hearing no objection to the updated wording, I copied it over to the other warning templates and am closing this bug. Thanks!