Re: Validating XML email

I found that "tidy -eq" gives a pretty good result. To normalize the score, I figure it makes sense to divide the resulting line count by the byte count of the input file. I ran some MS Outlook output through and the most frequent complaint was the unknown tag , but there was also a nesting is

Re: Validating XML email

On Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:31 AM +0200 Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is far away from reality. What makes you think that XHTML mail would be any better formed than HTML? I bet some makers of those many crap HTML web mailers will just rename the Doctype if a client asks t

Re: Validating XML email

On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > This is far away from reality. What makes you think that XHTML mail would be > any better formed than HTML? I bet some makers of those many crap HTML web > mailers will just rename the Doctype if a client asks them about XHTML > compatibil

Re: Validating XML email

Kenneth Porter wrote on Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:49:47 -0700: > For legacy "un-XML", it's probably reasonable to let them get away with it. > But once something declares itself XML, I think it's fair to ask for a bit > more compliance, at the very least well-formedness. This is far away from reality

Re: Validating XML email

On Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:22 PM +0100 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I heard a stat recently (possibly via Matt Cutts?) that only ~4% of web pages validate. I wouldn't be surprised if email HTML is even worse, given the state of HTML renderers in the various MUAs. so this may no

Re: Validating XML email

> Still this is for validation, not well-formedness. I wonder whether > checking XML for well-formedness would provide better results. Checking HTML email for even rudimentary format shows that several mail clients who do not have a good outlook on how email should be created tend to exchange

Re: Validating XML email

Justin Mason wrote: I heard a stat recently (possibly via Matt Cutts?) that only ~4% of web pages validate. I wouldn't be surprised if email HTML is even worse, given the state of HTML renderers in the various MUAs. so this may not work too well I'm afraid :( That would be from Opera's massiv

Re: Validating XML email

Justin Mason wrote on Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:22:53 +0100: > I wouldn't be surprised if email HTML is even worse, indeed. Implementations are sometimes horrible, especially the stuff that the home-brewed webmail from some big ISPs or freemail providers creates. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany

Re: Validating XML email

Kenneth Porter writes: > I noticed some spam using XHTML, which I understand is HTML with stricter > XML validation rules. Just out of curiosity, I ran it through the W3C > Validator and it had quite a few errors. > > > > Now if someone goes to the trouble of claimin

Validating XML email

I noticed some spam using XHTML, which I understand is HTML with stricter XML validation rules. Just out of curiosity, I ran it through the W3C Validator and it had quite a few errors. Now if someone goes to the trouble of claiming their mail is XHTML, then it seems