W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Best Practices in HTML Re: The use of W3C standards in Denmark Part II

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 06:19:09 -0500
Message-Id: <96307406-71BB-11D8-9CF0-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: public-evangelist@w3.org

Le 08 mars 2004, à 14:59, Tex Texin a écrit :
> It could be the philosophy behind the validator has changed, but in 
> Nov. 2002,
> I reported that the validator did not check for problems such as links 
> to
> fragments that do not exist. (e.g. <a href="#tex"> with no 
> corresponding id=tex
> or name=tex in the document).
> At the time it was stated that it wasn't a priority for the validator 
> to find
> problems such as this, unless it was covered by the DTD. i.e. strictly 
> speaking
> it wasn't a validation problem.

I think "link checker" verifies this type of mistakes: internal links 
of a document

Would you be interested to
	1. make the list of all requirements MUST, MAY, SHOULD, etc included 
in the HTML Spec. (MUST are already done, see my previous message.)
	2. give an example on what do you think a validator should work with 
such a list. Implementation requirements for the validator to be able 
to detect or warn users.

It can be a collective  effort of the mailing list. Though I'm not sure 
of the right forum for that? public-qa-dev? www-qa? or here?

Olivier, what do you think about it?

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 06:19:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:18 UTC