This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Validate this: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.1//EN" "http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/DTD/xhtml-mobile11.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> <head> <title>test</title> </head> <body> <p>test</p> </body> </html> You'll get 10 errors with line numbers that are not even in the source file. It seems to be having some issues with the DTD, and falsely blaming the input source code. So this is really two bug report: improper line numbers, and a parsing issue with the 1.1 DTD. ---------------------- Replace the DTD with 1.0 or 1.2 and it works fine: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.0//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/xhtml-mobile10.dtd"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.2//EN" "http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/DTD/xhtml-mobile12.dtd">
Hi Bryce, This is caused by problems with the xhtml-mobile11.dtd from OMA/WAP Forum. I've contacted them regarding this issue. The issue with errors in DTDs being shown as if they were errors in the document is already recorded in Bug 301. Thanks.
Yep. I've repeatedly reported bugs in those DTDs, but to no effect. The 1.0 and 1.2 DTD's break my Java Integrated Development Environment, with a file not found error on: http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/DTD/xhtml-special.ent
(In reply to comment #1) > This is caused by problems with the xhtml-mobile11.dtd from OMA/WAP Forum. I've > contacted them regarding this issue. Shane looked at the DTD for xhtml-mobile11. found a typo, and reported it to the right people, who ack'd the issue. I expect the DTD should be fixed very soon.
(In reply to comment #3) > Shane looked at the DTD for xhtml-mobile11. found a typo, and reported it to > the right people, who ack'd the issue. I expect the DTD should be fixed very > soon. The DTD has been fixed on the OMA website.
Thanks, that's great! Another blow for the cause of valid markup. I hope that the Bug #301 issue is also eventually dealt with.