This is a tracking bug for problems with HTML output compliance and compatibility.
See Also:
This is a tracking bug for problems with HTML output compliance and compatibility.
See Also:
ayg wrote:
(In reply to comment #12)
It appeared so (before the wgHtml5 = false) but, this warning seems to negate
what the validator asserts. I found the warning just bellow."DOCTYPE Override in effect!
The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-W3CDTD XHTML 1.0
Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">" has been
suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML5" inserted instead, but even if no errors
are shown below the document will not be Valid until you update it to reflect
this new DOCTYPE.."
That's wrong. That text is correct for legacy HTML versions, which permit only one doctype, but HTML5 permits several different doctypes. Probably that validator text was written before HTML5 and never updated.
It seems the validator contradicts himself but, still, there's a warning; there
shouldn't be one.
The warning is gone in 1.17, but it's only a warning, not an error. It serves to alert you to a possible problem, not to say that there definitely is one.
Nice to read. When is 1.17.0 out? ;)
No planned release date.
using 1.17, I got only the following from the validator:
Warning Line 27, Column 77: The language attribute on the script element is obsolete. You can safely omit it.
<div id="siteNotice"><script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
ayg wrote:
(In reply to comment #14)
using 1.17, I got only the following from the validator:
Warning Line 27, Column 77: The language attribute on the script element is
obsolete. You can safely omit it.<div id="siteNotice"><script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
Should be fixed in r77619. It's a problem with DismissableSiteNotice, not MediaWiki itself. (But you aren't supposed to mention bugs in tracking bugs, you're supposed to file a new bug and mark it blocking this.)
We are currently supporting both and the html generation APIs are nicely abstracting the details away.
Now that we don't support XHTML 1.0 and many of the dependent bugs aren't really XHTML issues I'm making this our HTML validity tracking bug. bug 49337 will also cover things that affect our well formed XML feature.