This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 4848 - warn about incorrect public/system identifiers combinations, or system identifiers that go 404
Summary: warn about incorrect public/system identifiers combinations, or system identi...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Validator
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Parser (show other bugs)
Version: 0.8.0b2
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: 0.9.0
Assignee: Terje Bless
QA Contact: qa-dev tracking
URL: http://www.codelyoko.cn
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-07-11 09:24 UTC by rimy
Modified: 2008-01-31 06:31 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description rimy 2007-07-11 09:24:55 UTC 
When I use   or © it said XML Parsing Error: Entity
 \'nbsp\' not defined.
Comment 1 Olivier Thereaux 2007-07-11 11:11:43 UTC 
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.
Comment 2 rimy 2007-07-11 12:03:43 UTC 
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 .
Comment 4 Terje Bless 2008-01-17 08:20:17 UTC 
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.
Comment 5 Olivier Thereaux 2008-01-17 11:17:37 UTC 
(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.
Comment 6 Olivier Thereaux 2008-01-31 06:31:30 UTC 
(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!