I can Validate with Xhtml MP 1.2

HTML & CSS
1

Hello.
First, sorry by me english.
For a year I am making basics web pages for mobile devices. Habitually I use the following Doctype in my documents:



<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.2//EN"
"http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/DTD/xhtml-mobile12.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
  <head>
    <title>Not valid Page?</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8" />
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Wap content</p>
  </body>
</html>

That is the correct way, i’m sure.

Frequently, i process my pages Through the W3C validador to be verifying everything and the pages validate without problems (Obvious with a more extensive and complex code than them that I put to them as shows). However, for one week ago I have been being with an insoluble problem, I cant validate my page, the new pages and old pages (the old pages always validated correctly in the past).Using the Doctype and DTD that indicate above (very basic structure) the validator show this errors:

Error Line 18, Column 46: Input is not proper UTF-8, indicate encoding ! Bytes: 0x92 0x53 0x20 0x52
Error Line 69, Column 17: conditional section INCLUDE or IGNORE keyword expected
Error Line 73, Column 39: xmlParseElementDecl: ‘EMPTY’, ‘ANY’ or ‘(’ expected
Error Line 73, Column 39: Content error in the external subset

Can see you some line 18, 69 or 73 in my code? very strange

But, if that same code, it revalidated as XHTML 1.0 or XHTML 1.1, the validator say:
This document was Tentatively checked as XHTML 1.1
One Warning:
DOCTYPE Override in effect!
The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.2//EN” "http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/DTD/xhtml-mobile12.dtd"&gt;" has been suppressed and the DOCTYPE for “XHTML 1.1” 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.
Congratulations

Ovbiously the warning is logic,…and my Xhtml Sintax is OK.

is possible that the http://www.openmobilealliance.org/te...l-mobile12.dtd this corrupt one or is lost use of a day for the other.? May be a temporal failure in W3C validator? Im confused

Test with this link
http://vinoselfrances.com.ar/xhtml_mobil_1.2.html

Any idea?
Regards and Thanks
:

2

WAP in the sense of WML (which it was originally assigned) was deprecated, and XHTML-MP was declared redundant due to the advancement of cellphones.

Why use anything else when normal (X)HTML will do the task fine - that’s the question I would put forward to those considering the alternatives. :slight_smile:

3

Weird, that the validator mentions lines who do not exist!

I checked, the meta tag has charset=utf-8 and the server outputs utf-8 so encoding should be good (also, I could see all characters correctly in my browser which is picky about characters for some reason).

As xhtmlcoder and Alex have said (in very dense English), you can use regular HTML/XHTML for mobiles (possibly not XHTML with mobiles running Windows Mobile, they don’t do XHTML/XML?). Styling for mobiles is a pain. But the HTML markup should be able to match HTML for a website for desktop browsers. WAP seems to be going out of fashion : )

*edit

Before we finish learning HTML 5 already will be recommending HTML 6. Thanks to both for its answer.

Yes, it feels that way! It makes no sense that W3C still has a doctype on their pages that their validator does not recognise.

4

ok. I am warned. I will pass all my new work to Xhtml BASIC 1.x. But I insist, I do not know so that the changes of the W3C must be so arbitrary. They could at least remove the Doctype from XHTML MP 1.2 of its list of options. I believe that everything is more and more confused. Before we finish learning HTML 5 already will be recommending HTML 6. Thanks to both for its answer.
Regsrds

5

I have to agree here, XHTML-MP is a “dumb” standard, while it’s intentions were honest, the speed of which handheld devices like cellphones have adopted modern and fully functional browsers has surprised the mobile profile into obscurity. The initial intent of the mobile profile was to produce a reduced version of a website for those devices (as the upgrade from WML) however it’s totally obsolete now (and few mobile devices support it) as all mobile browsers support HTML completely. :slight_smile:

6

It looks like you have one or two other things going on regarding encoding. But as far as the W3C Validator is concerned that DTD has been superseded in favour of XHTML-MP so you would have to use that or another validator.

Is there any specific reason you are using that DTD? Since XHTML Basic 1.x http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/ is suitable for most limited mobile devices and basically superseded the need for XHTML-MP for the more modern devices.