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

Re: v0.6.6 Release? (was: 0.6.6 bug roundup)

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:55:48 +0300
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1084917348.29160.175.camel@bobcat.mine.nu>

On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 00:31, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >> >http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=705
> >> >
> >> >My .02¤: remove the catalog fallback in 0.6.6, try to find a
> >> >non-disruptive way to re-enable the functionality for 0.7.0.
> >> 
> >> You mean, the Validator should say "FATAL ERROR" again?
> >
> >I mean that the validator should not say "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01
> >Transitional!" for clearly bogus cases, such as:
> >http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/0.6/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkoti.welho.com%2Fvskytta%2Fbug705.html
> 
> Sure, but
> 
> >I don't care about the actual implementation that much.  If that's the
> >best that we can do for 0.6.6, IMO "FATAL ERROR" + a doctype override
> >drop-down box sitting next to it is a lot better than the current
> >behaviour.
> 
> we cannot advertise more friendly behavior as great new feature in
> 0.6.5 and turn it off in 0.6.6. If that is the only option I'd
> rather say we won't fix it for 0.6.6.

I disagree, but I seem to be in the minority so I'll shut up after
this.  If "friendliness" and the core task (or reason for existence, if
you prefer) of the Validator conflict, to me the solution is clear: be
honest, sacrifice friendliness, not validation, to the extent
necessary.  And advertising should not get into the way of fixing known
major bugs or backing out (if that's the best we can do) new known buggy
features.
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 17:55:50 GMT

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