From dirkx@webweaving.org Fri May 19 13:25:01 2000 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 57463 invoked from network); 19 May 2000 13:25:01 -0000 Received: from ns.skylink.it (root@194.177.113.1) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 May 2000 13:25:01 -0000 Received: from kim.ispra.webweaving.org (va-178.skylink.it [194.185.55.178]) by ns.skylink.it (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA30338; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:24:40 +0200 Received: from kim.ispra.webweaving.org (kim.ispra.webweaving.org [10.10.0.2]) by kim.ispra.webweaving.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29461; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:23:25 GMT X-Passed: MX on Ispra.WebWeaving.org Fri, 19 May 2000 13:23:25 GMT and masked X-No-Spam: Neither the receipients nor the senders email address(s) are to be used for Unsolicited (Commercial) Email without the explicit written consent of either party; as a per-message fee is incurred for inbound and outbound traffic to the originator. Posted-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:23:25 GMT Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:23:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik X-Sender: dirkx@kim.ispra.webweaving.org To: general@xml.apache.org cc: jsp@pkc.com Subject: Poorly formed HTML in Xerces-C documentation pages? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N FYI and persual. (Jesse; you might want to subscribed to this mailing list if you have an interest in these matters). Dw ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:00:23 -0400 From: Jesse Pelton To: "'apache@apache.org'" Subject: Poorly formed HTML in Xerces-C documentation pages? I'm not sure whether this is the best place to direct this comment to, but I couldn't find anything better. Many of the Xerces-C documentation pages appear to be poorly formed HTML. They display badly in Opera 4 beta 4, so I ran one (http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/apiDocs/class_dom_domimplementation.html) through the W3C's HTML validation service (http://validator.w3.org/), and it reported many errors. Some of the errors should not affect formatting, but some look like they might. I haven't the time to do a complete analysis of such large and complex pages, but I thought you should know of the problem. (I assume it's a problem in Doc++.) I've also reported it to Opera, in case part or all of the problem is on their end. IE 5 and Navigator 4.72 display the pages fine. Mozilla does better than Opera, but it's not perfect. It could be that the HTML is fine and Opera and Mozilla are broken, or it could be that IE and Navigator are simply covering up defects in the markup. (IE's laxity is infamous.) Jesse Pelton PKC Corporation