The Web Design Group

... Making the Web accessible to all.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> W3C validator interface deprecated
Frederiek
post Jul 4 2015, 04:03 AM
Post #1


Programming Fanatic
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,146
Joined: 23-August 06
From: Europe
Member No.: 9



Lately, when I validate a web page at http://validator.w3.org I get the following warning :

"This interface to HTML5 document checking is deprecated.
Use the Nu Html Checker at https://validator.w3.org/nu/ directly instead."

So, time to update your bookmarks and bookmarklets.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Jul 4 2015, 09:12 AM
Post #2


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,915
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



I only see that message when validating as HTML5. :-/
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Jul 4 2015, 02:01 PM
Post #3


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 18,024
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



That's because it only concerns HTML5. tongue.gif
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Nov 8 2015, 06:30 PM
Post #4


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,915
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



This "Nu HTML Checker" seems confusing and unreliable. First I got this warning/error:

QUOTE
Warning: Using windows-1252 instead of the declared encoding iso-8859-1.
Warning: Legacy encoding windows-1252 used. Documents should use UTF-8.
Error: Bad value iso-8859-1 for attribute charset on element meta: iso-8859-1 is not a preferred encoding name. The preferred label for this encoding is windows-1252.

for using this in my test page:

CODE
<meta charset="iso-8859-1">

--even though iso-8859-1 seems to permitted by the HTML5 spec (which says "Authors should use UTF-8", not that they must): http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-201410...ta.html#charset (if I use windows-1252 instead of iso-8859-1, I just get a warning).

A quick web search turned up this discussion:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-va...13Mar/0052.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-va...13Mar/0053.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-va...13Mar/0054.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-va...13Mar/0057.html

To quote Yucca Korpela from the last link:

QUOTE
If the W3C Markup Validator uses nightly
builds of editor's drafts rather than W3C Candidate Recommendation as
"the current spec", it is becoming more and more questionable to use it.

Declaring literally billions of pages invalid just because they declare
ISO-8859-1 helps nobody and makes people ask what the validator is for.
People use validators to find real problems they might have, not to get
confused about error messages that reflect just someone's opinions du jour.


I also got an error for using the MINLENGTH attribute with a INPUT type=text field, even though it's allowed in the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-201410...e-(type=search)

sad.gif

User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Nov 8 2015, 07:48 PM
Post #5


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 18,024
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



Told you. There won't be any true validators anymore since there won't be any DTDs. This verbose blah blah is what we'll have to put up with . Errors, mistakes or too high ambitions aside. One of the reasons i'm not p*ssing my pants over HTML5.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Nov 9 2015, 09:53 AM
Post #6


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,915
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



QUOTE(pandy @ Nov 9 2015, 01:48 AM) *

Told you. There won't be any true validators anymore since there won't be any DTDs.

So the validator will be based on the HTML spec instead, and change its rules whenever the spec changes? That might be OK, as long as the spec changes are backwards compatible. If not, I suspect both the spec and the validator will become irrelevant.

QUOTE
This verbose blah blah is what we'll have to put up with . Errors, mistakes or too hight ambitions aside. One of the reasons i'm not p*issing my pants over HTML5.

So how are we going to check for HTML syntax errors in the future (I'm not being sarcastic)? Perhaps we could use an HTML4 Doctype while validating, and just ignore all the resulting errors about unknown HTML5 elements. Or maybe write our own custom DTD with all the HTML5 elements included?

User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Darin McGrew
post Nov 9 2015, 01:02 PM
Post #7


WDG Member
********

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,279
Joined: 4-August 06
From: Mountain View, CA
Member No.: 3



QUOTE
So how are we going to check for HTML syntax errors in the future (I'm not being sarcastic)? Perhaps we could use an HTML4 Doctype while validating, and just ignore all the resulting errors about unknown HTML5 elements. Or maybe write our own custom DTD with all the HTML5 elements included?
Yeah, good question... One of the things that stops me from doing much with HTML5 is that my process involves using an offline validator. I don't want to give up the offline validator, but downloading, installing, and configuring an HTML5 validator/checker is non-trivial.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Nov 9 2015, 01:06 PM
Post #8


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 18,024
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



QUOTE
So the validator will be based on the HTML spec instead, and change its rules whenever the spec changes?


the worst is that somone needs to do that. we can't just feed a dtd to a validator anymore and it will understand it. somone needs to interpret the spec for the validator. i guess that in reality means change the validator.

QUOTE

Or maybe write our own custom DTD with all the HTML5 elements included?


that's a brilliant idea! Liam! Where are you? biggrin.gif

i have a problem with the verbosity of the 'new' (5-10 years?) w3c html validator too. i hate to read that blah blah every time. i like it short and succinct as it used to be and as 'our' validator still kindly expresses itself. i want to be able to sift through the errors quickly. i don't want to read a novel.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Nov 9 2015, 08:25 PM
Post #9


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 18,024
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



BTW, why was SGML abandoned? I don't think I've ever heard the reason for that.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Nov 10 2015, 06:57 AM
Post #10


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,915
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



Come again?
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Nov 10 2015, 08:56 AM
Post #11


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 18,024
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



SGML, the language DTDs are written in. Why is that not good enough all of a sudden? I guess my question really is why are DTDs bad?
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Darin McGrew
post Nov 10 2015, 01:20 PM
Post #12


WDG Member
********

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,279
Joined: 4-August 06
From: Mountain View, CA
Member No.: 3



QUOTE
Why is that not good enough all of a sudden? I guess my question really is why are DTDs bad?
I didn't find a concise (quotable) explanation, but my take on it is that SGML includes features that were never supported by browsers (although technically allowed by the DTD, because it was written in SGML), and that SGML cannot express features that are well-supported by browsers. So rather than try to fit HTML into the SGML box (or into the XML box), they decided to define HTML on its own.

But this is just conjecture based on reading various vague references to HTML5 and its lack of (official) DTDs.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Nov 10 2015, 02:01 PM
Post #13


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 18,024
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



you are probably right. i'll miss it anyway.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th October 2018 - 01:45 PM