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 1478 - Icon code on XHTML 1.0 Strict results page is *not* valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
Summary: Icon code on XHTML 1.0 Strict results page is *not* valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Validator
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Website (show other bugs)
Version: 0.7.0
Hardware: All All
: P5 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Olivier Thereaux
QA Contact: qa-dev tracking
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 2573 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-05-19 22:42 UTC by Daniel Dawson
Modified: 2005-12-09 13:01 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Daniel Dawson 2005-05-19 22:42:58 UTC
After validating a page as XHTML 1.0 Strict, I see the following code for
displaying an icon indicating the page is valid XHTML 1.0:

<p>
  <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
      src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10"
      alt="Valid XHTML 1.0!" height="31" width="88" /></a>
</p>

Ironically, its use of presentational attributes means this code will cause a
page to be invalid. You should provide a version of this without those
attributes when validating XHTML Strict (and, I suppose, an equivalent for HTML
Strict).
Comment 1 Olivier Thereaux 2005-05-23 06:01:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)

What makes you think that the height and width attributes for the img element are not valid? 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_img does not seem to agree with 
you, at least.

That said, yes, these could probably be removed.
Comment 2 Daniel Dawson 2005-05-23 07:18:35 UTC
Silly me. You're right. I guess I just assumed those attributes were deprecated.
Actually, http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#visual claims that all
such elements (on IMG and OBJECT) are deprecated, but these are excluded for
some reason. Not entirely sure why. Oh well, better use the list next time.
Comment 3 Olivier Thereaux 2005-12-09 12:57:44 UTC
*** Bug 2573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***