Re: The use of W3C standards in Denmark Part II

The surveys are interesting. A couple of comments:

a) The W3C Validator does not attempt to report all possible errors in web
pages, just validation or disagreement between the page and the DTD. So it is
possible for pages to be non-standard or have errors and still validate.
Perhaps there is a need for a "checker" which attempts to identify all possible
violations of relevant w3c standards.

Personally, I think it is a mistake that the validator isn't more complete,
since once an author's page is "validated" they will stop looking for problems.

b) It would be good, if having identified sites with invalid pages, or perhaps
less desirable (I presume) transitional pages, they were asked and had the
opportunity to offer comments on what prevents them from upgrading and
complying.
The information could be used to address the obstacles.

I find that the removal of certain features from the standard is a reason for
not moving to more recent standards.
I have in mind the ability to force a page to open in a new window, and others.

Regardless of the arguments for a feature's removal, if authors find it
desirable, then it becomes a motivation for not upgrading.

Note my point is not (here anyway) to lobby for a change to the standards, but
to incorproate into these surveys the opportunities to get insight and
explanations for the behaviors found. The info can help the design of future
standards or the development of tools to improve migration and upgrading.

tex





Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This discussion start to be really interesting. I have started to
> factorize the information at this place
> 
>         http://esw.w3.org/topic/QA/ValidatorStatistics
> 
> You are welcome to contribute.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898  mailto:Tex at XenCraft.com
Xen Master         XenCraft           http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 10:54:45 UTC