705 2004-05-07 19:59:12 +0000 The Markup Validation Service detects HTML 4.01 Strict as HTML 4.01 Transitional. 2005-02-05 04:45:02 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator check 0.6.5 All All RESOLVED FIXED http://validator.w3.org/check P1 major 0.6.7 1 bugzilla-w3c link ot ville.skytta www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 1793 0 bugzilla-w3c 2004-05-07 19:59:12 +0000 Version 0.6.5 of the W3C Markup Validation Service reports that documents with HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE declaration are HTML 4.01 Transitional documents: 'The uploaded file was checked and found to be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional. This means that the resource in question identified itself as "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and that we successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the markup language used).' I have tried different source spacinglots of line breaks or none at all; a single line for the DOCTYPE declaration or multiple linesbut always with the same results. Here is a test case (in its liberally spaced form for easy reading): -----[ Begin Clip ]----- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <TITLE>Test Case</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV> <H1>Test Case</H1> <P>Despite the HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE declaration, the W3C validator reports that this document is "HTML 4.01 Transitional":</P> <P>'The uploaded file was checked and found to be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional. This means that the resource in question identified itself as "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and that we successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the markup language used).'</P> <P>I have tried different source spacing—lots of line breaks or none at all; a single line for the DOCTYPE declaration or multiple lines—but always with the same results.</P> </DIV> </BODY> </HTML> -----[ End Clip ]----- 1803 1 362 bugzilla-w3c 2004-05-08 14:27:41 +0000 Created attachment 362 A Well-Spaced Test Case This is the same test case as within the body of my report (except that it lacks the hard line breaks that were introduced by Bugzilla), but in a separate file for your convenience. 1826 2 ville.skytta 2004-05-15 06:47:17 +0000 This is caused by validator's "fall back to HTML 4.01 Transitional if no known public identifier is found" behaviour. What triggers it in your document is that you've specified: "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict//EN" ...but there's no such public identifier. It should be: "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" ...for HTML 4.01 Strict. Nevertheless, the validator's output for these cases is not acceptable, I wish we can get this fixed soon. BTW, specifying just about anything as long as the root element is "HTML" will produce the same results, for example this: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//foo//DTD bar//EN" "quux.dtd"> 1829 3 bugzilla-w3c 2004-05-15 16:39:08 +0000 I am not sure how I got into the habit of using a non-standard DTD declaration, but I am confirming the assertion made in Comment #2 with reference URLs: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/Doctype It should be noted, however, that the same non-standard DTD declaration does appear in what looks like old versions of the validator's source code archived on the W3C Web site: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check?rev=1.200.2.13 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check?rev=1.200.2.14 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check?rev=1.200.2.15 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check?rev=1.200.2.16 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check?rev=1.200.2.17 Naturally, it also appears in some discussion on the validator list. 1835 4 link 2004-05-16 03:45:41 +0000 Argh! And if the page happens to be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional you won't even get as much as a warning about this, much less an error. OpenSP isn't even outputting anything we could key off of. Anyone have suggestions? 1860 5 link 2004-05-17 16:45:16 +0000 *** Bug 454 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 1869 6 ville.skytta 2004-05-17 18:15:39 +0000 One suggestion off the cuff, untested: remove the "HTML" ~ "HTML 4.01 Transitional" fallback from the catalog(s) (as well as other similar ones from other catalogs, if there are any), and insert the doctype ourselves if none is found, akin to how it's currently done in doctype override. 1870 7 link 2004-05-17 19:13:54 +0000 I found that idea impractical to implement last time I looked at it (for several reasons). If you can come up with code for this I'd be very happy. In either case, this is too disruptive for 0.6.6 IMO; setting target 0.7. 1871 8 ville.skytta 2004-05-18 02:27:48 +0000 What about just removing the catch-all-HTML catalog fallback for 0.6.6? Currently the problems it causes outweigh its benefits, and removing the fallback should not be too disruptive. 1892 9 nick 2004-05-19 03:19:46 +0000 Two points Re: Terje's #4: (1) I'm confused that it's giving preference to a catalogue default over a valid SYSTEM identifier in a case where the latter is provided. But that's really a side-issue: if we fix it, the problem just reappears when someone mistypes the SYSTEM id as well. (2) I think we could get OpenSP to emit a useful message by hacking the local defaulted DTD to emit a custom version string we can test against. 1894 10 link 2004-05-20 08:14:58 +0000 Retargetting for 0.6.7 and change Status->Accepted. 1902 11 ot 2004-05-20 21:42:44 +0000 Seems like Terje's tweak with "OVERRIDE NO" in sgml.soc fixed this. One interesting consequence is that documents with no doctype are now said to be "NOT VALID ". Which is quite true, they're not valid anything, they don't claim to be anything. I'm sure some people would consider it a heresy that a validation claim does not express against what. Other than that, a run through /dev/tests/ did not show anything abnormal. 1903 12 ville.skytta 2004-05-21 03:16:37 +0000 Sort of fixed, but the "friendliness" ie. fallback from no doctype to HTML 4.01 Transitional seems to be gone, or at least is partially broken: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/0.6/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkoti.welho.com%2Fvskytta%2Fbug705-2.html 1904 13 link 2004-05-21 11:31:19 +0000 False alarm! I repeat, false alarm! :-) The change appeared to "fix" it because it introduced a bug that disabled the fallback Doctype completely. With that gone, the behaviour described in this bug remains. 2239 14 ot 2004-09-06 06:24:02 +0000 The bug is apparently fixed in current HEAD. close? 362 2004-05-08 14:27:41 +0000 2004-05-08 14:27:41 +0000 A Well-Spaced Test Case Bug 705 Test Case.html text/html 933 bugzilla-w3c PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgU3RyaWN0Ly9FTiIg Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnL1RSL2h0bWw0L3N0cmljdC5kdGQiPgoKCjxIVE1MPgoKCjxIRUFE PgoKICA8TUVUQSBIVFRQLUVRVUlWPSJDb250ZW50LVR5cGUiIENPTlRFTlQ9InRleHQvaHRtbDsg Y2hhcnNldD1JU08tODg1OS0xIj4KCiAgPFRJVExFPlRlc3QgQ2FzZTwvVElUTEU+Cgo8L0hFQUQ+ CgoKPEJPRFk+CgoKPERJVj4KCgo8SDE+VGVzdCBDYXNlPC9IMT4KCgo8UD5EZXNwaXRlIHRoZSBI VE1MIDQuMDEgU3RyaWN0IERPQ1RZUEUgZGVjbGFyYXRpb24sIHRoZSBXM0MgdmFsaWRhdG9yIHJl cG9ydHMgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzICZxdW90O0hUTUwgNC4wMSBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwm cXVvdDs6PC9QPgoKPFA+J1RoZSB1cGxvYWRlZCBmaWxlIHdhcyBjaGVja2VkIGFuZCBmb3VuZCB0 byBiZSB2YWxpZCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFsLiBUaGlzIG1lYW5zIHRoYXQgdGhlIHJl c291cmNlIGluIHF1ZXN0aW9uIGlkZW50aWZpZWQgaXRzZWxmIGFzICZxdW90O0hUTUwgNC4wMSBU cmFuc2l0aW9uYWwmcXVvdDsgYW5kIHRoYXQgd2Ugc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHBlcmZvcm1lZCBhIGZv cm1hbCB2YWxpZGF0aW9uIHVzaW5nIGFuIFNHTUwgb3IgWE1MIFBhcnNlciAoZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9u IHRoZSBtYXJrdXAgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgdXNlZCkuJzwvUD4KCjxQPkkgaGF2ZSB0cmllZCBkaWZmZXJl bnQgc291cmNlIHNwYWNpbmcmbWRhc2g7bG90cyBvZiBsaW5lIGJyZWFrcyBvciBub25lIGF0IGFs bDsgYSBzaW5nbGUgbGluZSBmb3IgdGhlIERPQ1RZUEUgZGVjbGFyYXRpb24gb3IgbXVsdGlwbGUg bGluZXMmbWRhc2g7YnV0IGFsd2F5cyB3aXRoIHRoZSBzYW1lIHJlc3VsdHMuPC9QPgoKCjwvRElW PgoKCjwvQk9EWT4KCgo8L0hUTUw+