in reply to (ichimunki) Re: CGI.pm HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation
in thread CGI.pm HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation

BTW, I am making no assumptions as to what the problem is. I had noticed a few posts mention web pages that were not W3C compliant and figured that W3C was a useful resource.

On the other hand I've had my share of Doh! posts, so I certainly wouldn't rule out pilot error. One URI I tested was this if that helps any.

--Jim

  • Comment on Re: (ichimunki) Re: CGI.pm HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(ichimunki) Re x 3: CGI.pm HTML vs. W3C HTML Validation
by ichimunki (Priest) on Dec 29, 2001 at 02:34 UTC
    The doctype in that page is not what I would expect to see from a typical CGI.pm output, it lacks the usual version numbering and "strict", "transitional", etc information. That is causing the validator to assume the worst about the page. And I don't see anything on that page that wouldn't validate other than the header itself, unless BGCOLOR wasn't a valid attribute in 2.0.

    FWIW, I just submitted one of my own CGI.pm-made HTML docs and found that it does not validate, but because the header says the doctype is XHTML basic, and the header itself uses the lang attribute, which is not in basic apparently. So your point is perhaps valid, but this may even be fixed in newer versions of CGI (I'm on whatever ActiveState included with ActivePerl).
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom