W3C攻击HTML [英] W3C attack on HTML
问题描述
W3C中的某个人无法接受这么多时间的想法（你自己的b $ b和其他所有人）浪费了一切（确切地说是XHTML）。所以
而不是专注于有用的东西而不是他们决定将b $ b挤出HTML - 好像它可以推动任何人使用XHTML。
在W3C反对HTTP战争中需要注意的事项。 （一个疯狂的
标题 - 但接近真相）：
1.截至最近甚至完全正确的严格页面与DTD链接*和*
服务器内容类型标题text / html：
<！DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC" - // W3C // DTD HTML 4.01严格// EN"
" http：//www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
< html>
< head>
< title>清空< / title>
< meta http-equiv =" Content-Type"
content =" text / html; charset = iso-8859-1">
< / head>
< body>
< p> ;没有内容< / p>
< / body>
< / html>
会发出巨大警告：
< quote>
未知的解析模式！
此文档的MIME媒体类型（text / html）是用于同时提供基于SGML和XML的文档，并且根据文档中的DOCTYPE声明，无法消除它b / b
的歧义。在SGML模式下解析将继续
。
< / quote>
请随意忽略此警告：它有没有技术意义，实际上是错误的，误导性的，与W3C自己的规格相矛盾。
2.从本周开始，这个警告被用作正式的借口而不是
建议更多有效的HTML 4.01横幅即使验证本身
已通过。
如果您通过验证（绿色横幅）并仍想放置
$ b您网站上的$ b横幅广告，相关图片网址为
< http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401>和相关的HTML代码
可能是这样的：
< p>< a
href =" http： //validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
src =" http：//www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401"
width =" 88" height =" 31"
alt =" Valid HTML 4.01"
style =" border：1px none">< / a>< / p>
如果将来W3C服务器停止提供横幅广告，可以从多个地点重新链接
，比如来自
< http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/html401/valid-html401.bmp>。
但到目前为止，这种极端情况是不必要的（但是？）。
VK写道：W3C中的某个人无法接受这么多时间的想法（你自己的和其他所有人一起浪费了（确切地说是XHTML）。所以
而不是专注于有用的东西而不是他们决定将HTML挤出来 - 好像它可以推动任何人使用XHTML。
下次你针对某些事情发起长篇大论时，我建议你更加谨慎地验证你的事实！
1.截至最近甚至完全正确的严格页面与DTD链接*和*
服务器服务器内容类型标题text / html：
<！DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC" - // W3C // DTD HTML 4.01 Strict // EN"
" http：//www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
[snip]
验证者不喜欢你的doctype就好了：
它是无效的！
-
AGw。
VK写道：W3C中的某个人根本无法接受这么多时间（你自己和其他人）浪费的想法（确切地说是XHTML）。所以
而不是专注于有用的东西而不是他们决定将HTML挤出来 - 好像它可以推动任何人使用XHTML。
要注意的事情在这个 W3C反对HTTP战争 （一个疯狂的标题 - 但接近真相）：
1.截至最近甚至完全正确的严格页面与DTD链接*和*
服务器服务器内容类型header" text / html"：
<！DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC" - // W3C // DTD HTML 4.01 Strict // EN"
" http：// www。 w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
不正确。单词Strict在4.01之后不属于。
" frederick" < FR ******* @ southernskies.co.uk>写道：
VK写道：
[更多相同]
下次启动长篇大论某事，我建议你更加小心地验证你的事实！
嗯，验证器前端蜂鸣器*是愚蠢的，不是说FUBAR。
OP太懒了，无法获得线索并构建测试用例。 :)
< http://validator.w3.org/check？uri = http％3A％2F％2Fbednarz.nl％2Ftmp％2Fcase.htm l& ss = 1> ;
< http://validator.w3.org/check？uri = http％3A％2F％2Fbednarz.nl％2Ftmp％2Fpi.html& ss = 1>
到目前为止对于bullschildt-heuristics。
比较错误的错误消息
也很有趣
< http://validator.w3.org/check？uri = http％3A％2F％2Fbednarz.nl％2Ftmp％2Fsys.html& ss = 1>
带有后备行动
<！DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC" - // W3C // DTD HTML 4.01 Strict // EN"
" http：//www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
这并不奇怪验证者不喜欢你的文件类型：
它无效！
是吗？请解释。引用的文档类型声明本身是
几乎''无效''（如果你在目录中设置''覆盖''到'是''并添加
an将公共标识符输入到HTML 4.01的本地副本
strict DTD - 或其他任何内容，公共和系统标识符
HTML 4.0指向不同的DTD自从多年和noboby关心 - 你可以
甚至验证本地设置的文档实例。
-
|||十六进制EBB
oo十进制3771
--oOo - （） - oOo--八进制7273
205再见二进制111010111011
Someone in W3C just cannot accept the idea of so much time (your own
and everyone else) wasted for nothing (for XHTML to be exact). So
instead of concentrating on something useful instead they decided to
squeeze HTML out - as if it can push anyone for XHTML.
To things to be aware of in this "W3C against of HTTP war" (a crazy
title - but close to the truth):
1. As of recently even fully correct Strict page with DTD linked *and*
served with server Content-Type header "text/html":
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Empty</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<p>No content</p>
</body>
</html>
leads to a huge warning:
<quote>
Unknown Parse Mode!
The MIME Media Type (text/html) for this document is used to serve both
SGML and XML based documents, and it is not possible to disambiguate it
based on the DOCTYPE Declaration in your document. Parsing will
continue in SGML mode.
</quote>
Please feel free to ignore this warning: it has no technical sense,
factually wrong, misleading and contradicting to W3C own specs.
2. Starting this week this warning is used as a formal excuse to not
propose any more "Valid HTML 4.01" banner even if the validation itself
is passed.
If you passed the validation (green banner) and still want to place the
banner on your site, the relevant image url is
<http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401> and the relevant HTML code
could be like:
<p><a
href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401"
width="88" height="31"
alt="Valid HTML 4.01"
style="border: 1px none"></a></p>
If in the future W3C server stops serving the banner, it can be
re-linked from a number of locations, say from
<http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/html401/valid-html401.bmp>.
But as of today such extreme is not necessary (yet?).
VK wrote:Someone in W3C just cannot accept the idea of so much time (your own
and everyone else) wasted for nothing (for XHTML to be exact). So
instead of concentrating on something useful instead they decided to
squeeze HTML out - as if it can push anyone for XHTML.
Next time you launch a tirade against something, I suggest that you be
a bit more careful to verify your "facts"!
1. As of recently even fully correct Strict page with DTD linked *and*
served with server Content-Type header "text/html":
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
[snip]
It''s hardly surprising that the validator didn''t like your doctype:
it''s invalid!
--
AGw.
VK wrote:Someone in W3C just cannot accept the idea of so much time (your own
and everyone else) wasted for nothing (for XHTML to be exact). So
instead of concentrating on something useful instead they decided to
squeeze HTML out - as if it can push anyone for XHTML.
To things to be aware of in this "W3C against of HTTP war" (a crazy
title - but close to the truth):
1. As of recently even fully correct Strict page with DTD linked *and*
served with server Content-Type header "text/html":
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
Incorrect. The word "Strict" doesn''t belong after the "4.01".
"frederick" <fr*******@southernskies.co.uk> writes:
VK wrote:
[more of the same]
Next time you launch a tirade against something, I suggest that you be
a bit more careful to verify your "facts"!
Well, the validator front-end buzzer *is* silly, not to say FUBAR. The
OP is just too lazy to get a clue and construct a test case. :)
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbednarz.nl%2Ftmp%2Fcase.htm l&ss=1>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbednarz.nl%2Ftmp%2Fpi.html& ss=1>
So far for bullschildt-heuristics.
It is also fun to compare the erroneous error message for
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbednarz.nl%2Ftmp%2Fsys.html &ss=1>
with the fallback action for
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbednarz.nl%2Ftmp%2Ffully-tagged.html&ss=1>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/strict.dtd">
It''s hardly surprising that the validator didn''t like your doctype:
it''s invalid!
Is it? Please explain. The cited document type declaration itself is
hardly ''invalid'' (if you set ''override'' to ''yes'' in your catalog and add
an entry for the public identifier to your local copy of the HTML 4.01
strict DTD -- or anything else, the public and the system identifier of
HTML 4.0 point to different DTDs since years and noboby cares -- you can
even validate the document instance set locally).
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
这篇关于W3C攻击HTML的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
