validation puzzle ("OMITTAG NO" error)

[kj]

Here's a puzzle I can't figure out.

I visited the page http://validator.w3.org, and confirmed that it
validates itself.

Then I *saved* it to my docroot directory using my browser's save-as
function, and then tried to submit this saved page for validation.
Now it generates 17 errors, of the form:

end tag for "link" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified.

I can't understand why the saved version of the same page produces
this error. The page I saved can be seen here:

http://www.panix.com/~kynn/v/

As you can see, it looks pretty much the same as the original.
I've also compared the source for both pages (using the browser's
show-source command), and I can't see any significant difference.

What's going on?

OK, here's a second question, a more important one, in a way. I
have 3 books on HTML, and not one of them has helped me at all with
this question. There are a zillion books on HTML in the market.
Among these, which one would have helped me with this question? In
other words, next to the W3C specs (which I find very difficult to
read somehow), what's the "bible" of HTML? The book that would
cover even obscure problems like this one?

Thanks!

kj
--
NOTE: In my address everything before the first period is backwards;
and the last period, and everything after it, should be discarded.

[Els]

kj wrote:

Here's a puzzle I can't figure out.

I visited the page http://validator.w3.org, and confirmed that it
validates itself.

Then I *saved* it to my docroot directory using my browser's save-as
function, and then tried to submit this saved page for validation.
Now it generates 17 errors, of the form:

end tag for "link" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified.

I can't understand why the saved version of the same page produces
this error. The page I saved can be seen here:

http://www.panix.com/~kynn/v/

As you can see, it looks pretty much the same as the original.
Pretty much isn't good enough.
The original has this:
<link rev="made" href="mailto:ww ***********@w3. org" />
Your has this:
<link rev="made" href="mailto:ww ***********@w3. org">

The difference is the slash at the end, which causes the error.
I've also compared the source for both pages (using the browser's
show-source command), and I can't see any significant difference.
Need to look closer then ;-)
OK, here's a second question, a more important one, in a way. I
have 3 books on HTML, and not one of them has helped me at all with
this question. There are a zillion books on HTML in the market.
Among these, which one would have helped me with this question?
Probably any of them. You just need to understand the difference
between XHTML and HTML.
In
other words, next to the W3C specs (which I find very difficult to
read somehow), what's the "bible" of HTML? The book that would
cover even obscure problems like this one?

It's not an obscure problem, and for me the specs are good enough ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

[Michael Winter]

On 28/04/2006 16:58, kj wrote:

I visited the page http://validator.w3.org, and confirmed that it
validates itself.

Then I *saved* it to my docroot directory using my browser's save-as
function, and then tried to submit this saved page for validation.
Now it generates 17 errors, of the form:

end tag for "link" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified.
The validator interface has been written as Appendix C XHTML, served as
HTML. When your browser saved it, it removed the slashes that form
empty-element start-tags. For example, in the original:

<link rev="made" href="mailto:ww ***********@w3. org" />

In your saved version:

<link rev="made" href="mailto:ww ***********@w3. org">

As elements must be closed in XML documents, the validator complains
about the latter, as well as the other link, meta, img, br, and input
elements.

If you change the document type to HTML 4.01 Strict, remove the prolog,
and the xml:lang and xmlns attributes, the errors should disappear.

[snip]
[...] what's the "bible" of HTML? The book that would cover even
obscure problems like this one?

Sorry. I wouldn't know.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.