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

Re: [check] open bug roundup

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:36:36 +0900
To: public-qa-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040324063636.GA19493@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> +1.  Then there's the issue how to mark docs that produce
> errors/warnings in fussy mode. 

Precisely, that's where the complication comes from.

If you have a look at opensp's output when feeding it a document with
shorttags (otherwise valid)
[[
24/03 15:19 ot@wasabi ~% cat SHORTTAG-test.html| onsgmls  -wmin-tag -wfully-tagged -wrefc -wmissing-att-name
onsgmls:<OSFD>0:2:6:E: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
onsgmls:<OSFD>0:2:6:E: document type does not allow element "TITLE" here
onsgmls:<OSFD>0:4:0:E: unclosed start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
onsgmls:<OSFD>0:4:0:E: document type does not allow element "UL" here
onsgmls:<OSFD>0:4:34:W: empty end-tag
onsgmls:<OSFD>0:5:20:E: no document element
]]

If I understand onsgmls speak, that means even though the -w options
are supposed to add *warnings*, it actually spits out both errors and
warnings. Which means that, even if we are (were?) marking errors and
warnings differently, there would be no way for us to mark fussy-induced
warnings as such.

In other words, the options we have at this point are, I believe:
- make fussy mode optional and be happy with the fact tat it marks
  documents as invalid. (+ s/lax/normal/ in the fussy mode note)
- remove fussy mode altogether (comment it out)

The latter is unfortunate, but so will be the rants of people pointing
out that the validator still marks valid documents as invalid (in this
particular mode).
-- 
olivier
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 01:41:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:44 GMT