980 2005-01-04 10:39:54 +0000 This Page Is Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 Strict//EN! even if it's not valid XHTML 1.1 2005-02-04 19:06:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator check 0.6.7 All All RESOLVED FIXED http://validator.w3.org/check P2 normal --- 1 shake link ian www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 2772 0 shake 2005-01-04 10:39:54 +0000 If the page have this doctype declaration: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> validator says: This Page Is Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 Strict//EN! even if it is not valid XHTML 1.1, The page wasn't even valid XHTML 1.0 Strict .. 2773 1 shake 2005-01-04 10:41:21 +0000 You can try http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.valxdater.net%2F 2774 2 bjoern 2005-01-04 11:45:03 +0000 I am not sure what the problem is, the public identifier for XHTML 1.1 is "- //W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" (no Strict as there is no XHTML 1.1 Strict document type) which is all the Validator says. Since the Validator does not know the public identifier, it echoes it rather than using a more friendly identifier. It would be better if the Validator pointed out the problem of using an unrecognized document type declaration, is that your point? 2775 3 shake 2005-01-04 12:51:47 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > I am not sure what the problem is, the public identifier for XHTML 1.1 is "- > //W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" (no Strict as there is no XHTML 1.1 Strict document > type) which is all the Validator says. Since the Validator does not know the > public identifier, it echoes it rather than using a more friendly identifier. > It would be better if the Validator pointed out the problem of using an > unrecognized document type declaration, is that your point? Well It should not say that it is Valid, if it's not even valid againts existing dtd given there .. After validating that page validator says that the page is perfectly valid and you can use logo W3C XHTML 1.1 on this page .. IMHO it is incorrect as well .. It propably should not say anything about validity of the document if it doesnt know type of the document? 2776 4 bjoern 2005-01-04 12:58:47 +0000 Aha, I see, that's a known problem, the Validator falls back to XHTML 1.0 Transitional for XHTML documents with an unknown public identifier, this is fixed in the current development version. The Validator now validates the document against the referenced XHTML 1.0 Strict document type definition. 2920 5 ian 2005-01-28 11:31:11 +0000 If the validator doesn't recognise the DOCTYPE, it should not assume anything. At the moment, validating something that says: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//TEST/VALIDATE ME//EN" "http://example.com/"> ...always says it is valid. It should either download the DTD and validate against that, or claim it cannot validate it. It should definitely never validate against something other than the specified DTD. 2921 6 bjoern 2005-01-28 11:37:10 +0000 > At the moment, validating something that says: > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//TEST/VALIDATE ME//EN" "http://example.com/"> > ...always says it is valid. I am unable to reproduce this problem, it rather says Line 1, column 46: invalid formal public identifier "-//TEST/VALIDATE ME//EN": no SPACE after public text class Line 1, column 69: DTD did not contain element declaration for document type name ... 2922 7 ian 2005-01-28 11:59:05 +0000 Here's a testcase: http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/xml/validating/001.xml When I validate it at: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hixie.ch%2Ftests%2Fadhoc% 2Fxml%2Fvalidating%2F001.xml ...I get: This Page Is Valid -//TEST//VALIDATE ME//EN! Is this fixed in the latest version? 2923 8 bjoern 2005-01-28 12:12:19 +0000 See http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check? uri=http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/xml/validating/001.xml The Validator does not support resolution of relative references as system identifiers hence the error. If you change it to use some supported system identifier, it should at least complain about the missing declarations. So yes, it's fixed to the extend that the Validator does not silently ignore such problems. 2924 9 ian 2005-01-28 12:55:33 +0000 Ah indeed, that version doesn't seem to have this bug. Thanks! 4218 10 link 2005-02-04 19:06:09 +0000 Current CVS HEAD will twig to the parse mode from the Content-Type if the DOCTYPE Declaration is missing or bogus, fall back to the appropriate Transitional DTD, and warn you of this fact.