discuss: Linux Documentation Library check
Subject:
Re: Linux Documentation Library check
From:
"Chris Karakas" ####@####.####
Date:
25 Sep 2003 15:33:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20030925.cK9.39411700@www.karakas-online.de>
> Well, you might want to make your page syntactically
> correct. It currently fails to take even the first step in
> that direction:
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Felibrary.fultus.com%2Flinux%
> 2F>
> says "Fatal Error: No DOCTYPE specified!"
>
Terrence, THANK YOU!
You saved this list from a rant of mine, which I was almost going to write down! I
think the above answer of yours is the best and says it all - and I wonder why I
didn't come up with it, although I include a validator icon with a link that
validates the current page on almost every page on my website...
Let me try to answer to Oleg, who has bombarded me with what he tinks is enough
proof of his interoperability and accessibility efforts:
Oleg, I really appreciate the time you take to do all these tests, but you miss the
point. A link with blanks in it, *has* to have the blanks (if they are sooo
necessary) written as "%20". The browsers you are testing with probably do the
following:
- ask for the links with the blanks
- get an error back
- intercept this error and try again, this time replacing blanks with %20s
- display the right link and page
Just because those browsers correct your error automatically, putting %20 in every
blank, it is by no means proof that you didn't make any. Why do *I* have to upgrade
and not *you* have to write correct links?
--
--
Regards
Chris Karakas
http://www.karakas-online.de
