This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Reported by Ian Hickson: The following document: http://www.damowmow.com/playground/html-not-xml-2.html ....is a valid HTML 4.01 document. However, with the new validator, I get the following error message: | This Page Is NOT Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict! | | Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML | parser. | | 1. Line 2, column 7: S separator in comment declaration | | <!-- -- --> | ^ This is probably a bug in the XHTML detection code. Furthermore, when I force it to be handled as HTML 4.01, it still gets autodetected as XHTML.
This case is pathological and compounded by the differing comment syntax between SGML and XML. AFAICT, the root cause is that HTML::Parser doesn't understand the comment syntax and so detects the XHTML DOCTYPE, forcing the Validator into XML mode. Any fix for this needs to begin by fixing HTML::Parser's comment parser and then we can see what this leaves us with in "check". This probably also means we'll have to fix Bug #24 first. Setting blocker on Bug #24 and target to 0.7.0 to revisit the issue then.
I doubt we'll get around to fixing this bug for 0.7.0. Terje, What do you think?
According to the HTML WG, a UA is non-compliant if it handles an XHTML document sent as text/html as XHTML; such a UA must apparently handle the document as HTML regardless of what it looks like. # [...] documents served as text/html should be treated as HTML and not as XHTML. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024.html But I don't know if they meant to include validators in that statement.
(In reply to comment #2) > I doubt we'll get around to fixing this bug for 0.7.0. indeed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12 ***
adding dependency on Bug #1500 too, as the switching to xml mode may end up being decided not by the doctype but by the media type.
(In reply to comment #3) > According to the HTML WG, a UA is non-compliant if it handles an XHTML document > sent as text/html as XHTML; such a UA must apparently handle the document as > HTML regardless of what it looks like. According to the WG, XHTML is always XML, and should be validated as such. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2007Apr/0175.html > But I don't know if they meant to include validators in that statement. Apparently not.
Created attachment 524 [details] Hello india bug QA
Created attachment 525 [details] Hello india bug QA
Created attachment 526 [details] Hello india bug QA