gmane.org.w3c.validator

validate my pages

=?iso-8859-2?Q?Mgr._Zdenko_=A9mondrk?= — 2013-06-17T21:46:54

Hi can you validate my pages, please?

Send me a DOCTYPE html - title for Worpress please.

 

Sites:

http://www.publicregno.sk/

http://www.regnomedia.sk/

http://www.registerchranenychdielni.sk/

 

Thanks

Zdeno

NOTE: Whenever possible, give the address of the document you were checking.

Page Validation

=?iso-8859-2?Q?Mgr._Zdenko_=A9mondrk?= — 2013-06-16T12:28:55

http://www.regnomedia.sk/

http://www.registerchranenychdielni.sk/

 

NOTE: Whenever possible, give the address of the document you were checking.

Add Subject Here

2013-06-16T14:04:06

Hello.
Every time i cheked out mij webpage the validator says : Sorry! This document cannot be checked.
But i tried planty anothers validators and every time is the webpage valid.
I think there is something wrong with u server, maybe not configured as well.
Greetings.
PJ.


NOTE: Whenever possible, give the address of the document you were checking.

FW: Greg Sabin

Greg Sabin — 2013-06-16T13:12:32

boa http://www.daganglobal.eu/do/rbvhapmtxfahx/kwlsdyqtdata/tjnhfavonbbqcd/gqzcpdcjewgugt.htm




gspx

Enable Spreadsheet & PDF download of validation results

Garrett Hyder — 2013-06-12T07:35:30

Small feedback idea,
With Markup Validation provide the ability to download the results in
spreadsheet or pdf format.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpartners.ratehouse.ca%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
Would love to save the results to show what I've corrected to my client.
Thanks

Bug in validator. [735]

2013-06-06T10:50:47

Hello!

Your "Nu Markup Validation Service" thinks that using XHTML 1.1 is an
error. Example:
http://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fluwak.spb.ru%2F
This is only your error. Validation is a formal process that checks
grammar of a document according to declaration of type in that document.
All correct validators must provide the same opinion about the validity
a document. So, as far as the document is valid,
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fluwak.spb.ru%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
your validator MUST identify it as VALID.

As regards "Legacy doctype", this can be mentioned only as a warning,
not an error.

What is more, HTML5 has not become a standard yet. So, declaration
<!DOCTYPE html> can't be "expected". XHTML 1.1 declaration is up to date.

I hope, you will stop misinform people.

Thank you.

--
Ivan

Re: image width in percent

2013-06-05T15:37:48

Thank you.  My 45-year computer guru (Dick Miller of Miller
Microcomputer Services, Natick, MA) scolded me for not producing HTML
code that adjusted smoothly to screens of varying width. Percent
scaling seemed the perfect response. However, the term 'stretch' sent
me to Google, and sure enough, CSS seems to know something about
stretching images. I only have a hundred or so, scattered over 25
chapters: maybe I can find a validator-acceptable approach.

This is, incidentally, one thing that the W3C material is weak on. It
is good on announcing what doesn't work, but does not always tell me,
'here's what you need this week, instead of what used to work'.

Best,

BBecula
On 06/05/2013 at 3:35 PM, "Jukka K. Korpela"  wrote:2013-06-05 16:16,
David Dorward wrote:

percent.
to
document.

Alternatively, keep using the attributes and ignore these error 
messages, but double-check that you have entered them correctly.

Just because HTML5 drafts say that something is obsolete doesn't stop
it 
from working. In fact, the

Re: image width in percent

Coldfire Design Studio Pvt Ltd — 2013-06-05T15:28:33

Hi Ben,

I have created a demo page for you to illustrate the use of % for scaling
of images in HTML/CSS.
See
http://www.coldfiredesignstudio.com/devtools/tutorials/image-css-tutorial.html

Let me know if this was helpful for you.

Regards,
COLDFIRE

Re: image width in percent

Jukka K. Korpela — 2013-06-05T13:34:44


Alternatively, keep using the attributes and ignore these error 
messages, but double-check that you have entered them correctly.

Just because HTML5 drafts say that something is obsolete doesn't stop it 
from working. In fact, the drafts require continued support in browsers, 
though they formulate this somewhat cryptically:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/rendering.html#attributes-for-embedded-content-and-images

Unfortunately, HTML5 validators report as errors constructs that belong 
to traditional HTML and are universally supported in browsers but just 
don't conform to the philosophy/policy of HTML5 (and it's not the 
validators' fault - that's what HTML5 validators have been defined to 
do). This implies that they won't distinguish between such policy 
violations and actual errors, e.g. between width="50%" and width="50 %" 
(the latter probably won't work as intended). Incidentally, the latter 
causes a somewhat cryptic variant of the error message: "Bad value 50 % 
for attribute height on element img: Ex

Re: image width in percent

David Dorward — 2013-06-05T13:16:51


First, check [the 
spec](http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-dim-width) 
to confirm that the validator is right (which it is, for HTML 5):


Then use CSS for any presentation you wish to apply to your document.

image width in percent

2013-06-05T07:15:17


URL:  http://electromontis.net/evoligion/_A/A-1.shtml#A-1

On this page, and many others, I have images which are currently sized
with tags such as:

with width in percent. This means that they scale nicely on different
sized screens, and
it works on everything I have tried, keeping captions neatly beside
the images. The
validator insists that only 'px' should be used for widths, but this
gives erratic results
on displays with different pixels/cm densities.

What to do?

Ben Becula

Re: spellcheck for textbox and radio buttons!!

Jukka K. Korpela — 2013-06-02T19:32:18


That's right. It's correct because the spellcheck attribute has been 
defined as global, i.e. as applicable to any element:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#global-attributes

It does not have an *effect* on most elements, but it's still permitted, 
for simplicity I guess. The HTML5 CR is somewhat vague:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/editing.html#attr-spellcheck

Technically it says that the *value* of an input element will be checked 
(unless it is readonly or disabled). Technically this seems to imply 
that the value of the value=... attribute is to be spellchecked, in the 
case of <input type=checkbox ...> or <input type=radio ...>. Browsers 
that support spellchecking don't seem to do such checks, and it is 
difficult to see why they should do so and how they could do so. But 
this is outside the scope of validation - I have submitted a bug report 
on this, regarding the WHATWG HTML document:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22237

Yucca

Validation icons

David Ashby — 2013-06-01T18:21:04

As someone who used to place validation icons on pages that had passed the
W3C validator when using html 4 and on I am now using html and find that
there are no icons.  This maybe a very minor issue in the scheme of things
but I would think to promote W3C and its standards this is a project that
should be completed as soon as possible.

spellcheck for textbox and radio buttons!!

2013-06-02T05:38:14

Hi,

I am checking my documents against HTML5 using the validator. I noticed
that the validator does not complain for the fact that I am using
spellcheck="true"
or spellcheck="true" for input elements of types checkbox and radio.

Good luck,
Mohammad

Re: Validating issue

Jukka K. Korpela — 2013-05-30T05:34:13


That’s because the page declares the XHTML 1.0 Strict document type, 
which does not have that attribute-


You could declare the XHTML 1.0 Transitional document type instead:

<!DOCTYPE html
      PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
      "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

This change may affect the browser mode. The details of doctype sniffing 
are messy; the compilation http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ is not quite 
up-to-date (it’s table of browser modes does not cover currently used 
browsers).

So it might be better to just ignore this error message. Or maybe remove 
the attribute – it is seldom useful to try to force pages to open in a 
new window or a new tab.

Yucca

Validating issue

Pieter de Vries — 2013-05-29T20:50:15

Hi,
I'm validating http://www.graszodengroningen.com and i received the following error:
there is no attribute "target"…pilot: Beoordeling 7.9 van 10" target="_blank"><img src=" http://www.graszodendrenthe.com " />What is wrong? How can I make sure that the attribute target will be correct?Thanks in advance,Pieter de Vries

Re: HTML5 validator bug handling querystrings

Jukka K. Korpela — 2013-05-28T05:48:26


This a known bug: http://bugzilla.validator.nu/show_bug.cgi?id=841

As it seems to take some time to have the bug fixed, here's how to libe 
with it: Use http://validator.w3.org/nu/ and then, after getting the 
validation report, click on "Message filtering" and uncheck the checkbox 
for this error message. Then you can see whether there are real error 
messages.

Caveat: Doing so, you may mask out real errors too - like &foo; which 
also causes this message and which is actually wrong.

Yucca

HTML5 validator bug handling querystrings

Aloha Massage Kauai — 2013-05-27T14:39:44

Hello,

The HTML5 validator is bugging out on all of my Google Maps links,
complaining about the embedded ampersands. The URL throwing all of the
errors is http://www.alohamassagekauai.com/specialty-kauai-massages.shtml

Thanks in advance for fixing this.
Debbie

Re: Validator ask for bzip2, but barfs when it gets what it asked for

Jukka K. Korpela — 2013-05-27T16:03:28


Contrary to what you write in the Subject line, the validator does not 
ask for bzip2. It just announces that it can handle some encodings, with 
x-bzip2 among them.

[...]

The names “bzip2” and “x-bzip2” are not the same, although they are 
probably used to denote the same encoding. By normal Internet 
principles, any unregistered encoding should have a name that starts 
with “x-”, but perhaps the validator could be a bit more liberal and 
accept “bzip2” too – it can hardly mean anything else.

On the other hand, the server is in error if it sends “bzip2” when the 
request does not list it.

I’m not sure what happens here otherwise – both Firefox and Chrome get a 
response that has “Content-Encoding:gzip” and “Vary: Accept-Encoding”, 
and they don’t specify x-bzip2 or bzip2 in their Accept-Encoding request 
header.

Yucca

Validator ask for bzip2, but barfs when it gets what it asked for

Klaus Alexander Seistrup — 2013-05-26T14:20:27

Hi,

I was checking my identity page for errors, but Validator barfed:

  »Sorry! This document cannot be checked.

   A fatal error occurred when attempting to decode response body
   from http://klaus.seistrup.dk/. Either we do not support the
   content encoding specified (“bzip2”), or an error occurred while
   decoding it.

   The error was: Don't know how to decode Content-Encoding ‘bzip2’«

Here's the request headers from Validator:

   GET / HTTP/1.1.
   TE: deflate,gzip;q=0.3.
   Connection: TE, close.
   Cache-Control: max-age=0.
   Accept-Encoding: gzip, x-gzip, deflate, x-bzip2.
   Host: klaus.seistrup.dk.
   User-Agent: W3C_Validator/1.3 http://validator.w3.org/services.

Cheers,

Re: Bug: ARIA Landmark Role "main" invalid on section element

Michael[tm] Smith — 2013-05-23T01:38:36

Katrin Kerber <katrinkerber< at >gmail.com>, 2013-04-22 11:09 +0100:


Thanks very much for catching this, and sorry I missed this when you
reported it last month.

The cause was a regression I introduced when I made some ARIA-related
updates a few weeks back. But I've fixed it now.

  --Mike