Philippe Verdy, Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:23:10 +0100: > 2012/11/28 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no> > >> For >> a new version of the validator, that ask more of those questions, >> please try http://validator.w3.org/nu/ - it happens to for the most >> part be developed by one of the Firefox developers, btw. And it allows >> you to check XHTML1-syntax as well (but only if you serve it as XHTML - >> if you serve it as HTML, then it validates it as HTML.) > > This "new" validator is not the one promoted and supported. I use the > "Unicorn" validator that checks all W2C supported markup languages > (including HTML5).
The "nu" validator is good if you are interested in the questions I mentioned above. >> Please note that prolog is one thing, and the DOCTYPE is another, see >> XML 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-prolog-dtd > > Yes I know the terminolgy, but it's evident that I'm including the document > declaration as part of the "prolog" (i.e. everything that is not comment > and that appears before the root element) It is just as confusing as ever that you continue to insist on your terminology. >>> The absence of the HTML5 required prolog (in its standard basic-SGML >>> profile), or the presence of another incompatible XML prolog is >>> enough to make the distinction between the two syntaxes. >> >> You mean: Visually? Yes. However, that is not how parsers think. What >> parsers normally do is that they look at the Content-Type "flag", >> before they decide how to parse the document. > > True, but then when the HTML5 parser The "HTML5 parser" is just the one and only (updated) HTML parser. > detects a violation of the required > extended "prolog" (sorry, the HTML5 document declaration, which is not a > valid "document declaration" for XHTML or for HTML4 or before or even for > SGML, due to the unspecified schema after the shema short name), it should > catch this exception to try another parser. There is no spec, that I am aware of, that says that it should do that. -- leif halvard silli