Flightcrew says Errors, but Sigil says no Errors…

[Barcelona]

Hi !
I continue on this thread a discussion I started on Sigil blog :

I have a question about Flightcrew : is the verification tool in Sigil 0.5 more recent and powerful than Flightcrew 0.7.2 stand-alone ?

Because I have an .epub file in wich FC 0.7.2 stand-alone finds errors (fonts resource present in the OPF , but it's not reachable (it's unused).), but for wich Sigil 0.5 says No problem !

So, wich verification tool shoud we use ?

John’s reply :

Sigil 0.5.0 uses FC 0.7.2. Most likely Sigil is fixing some issues with the EPUB (it runs the text sections through Tidy) when opening it.

So here is my question :
But the two buttons (tidy and auto-correct) are always disabled on my configuration… So Sigil is not supposed to correct anything, right ?
So, I don’t understand why FC stand-alone says Errors with font unused (but they are ! And I don’t see any errors in my code !), and FC in Sigil says No Errors…

Is there a bug in FC-stand alone ?

[Barcelona]

It seems FC is very boggus when there are fonts embedded in the epub…

[Toxaris]

Actually, having the buttons off does not stop Sigil to make some structural changes when needed to deliver a structurally correct ePUB. Have you tried open the ePUB in Sigil (validation: no problems), save and run the validation through FC.

[Barcelona]

Yes, of course, as all my epubs are done with Sigil !
For exemple, the file I attach here : it validates in Sigil, but not in FC stand-alone.
And I absolutely don’t know why…

[NicolasR]

OK, I confirm : there is something buggy.
I too have an epub, with font included, wich gives different validation results between FC stand-alone and FC-in-Sigil.