W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Initial remarks on Unicorn

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:45:28 +0200
To: "Jean-Guilhem Rouel" <jean-gui@w3.org>, "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: public-qa-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u1fpx2aesmjzpq@steven-750g>
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:02:48 +0200, Jean-Guilhem Rouel <jean-gui@w3.org>  
> First of all, thanks a lot for all these comments.

Pleasure. Good work.

>> 1. It doesn't seem to deal with 301 (and similar) redirects. E.g.  
>> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven
> That was a bug in Jigsaw. Yves fixed it yesterday.


>> 3. The appendix C guidelines are informational only (not normative),  
>> and are intended to help create content that is not only correct XML,  
>> but will also work with pure HTML browsers. The appendix C guidelines  
>> are now rather out-of-date, and the ones in Appendix A of  
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#compatGuidelines are a better  
>> source. However, they should only generate warnings, not errors.
> Unicorn uses http://qa-dev.w3.org/appc/, which used to be maintained by  
> ot. The output used by Unicorn is indeed not perfect, I'll try to have a  
> look at it, but I don't know the code at all.
> Do you know if there's an online checker for  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#compatGuidelines?

I don't. One thing I note is that it doesn't do the check if it is not  
served as XHTML. This is wrong, since the guidelines are to make content  
servable as both HTML and XHTML. So the checks are still valid if it is  
XHTML served as HTML (you can look at the DOCTYPE for instance).

Do you content negotiate? I went to some pages that I *thought* content  
negotiated betwen HTML and XHTML, but your validator only seemed to look  
at the HTML version.

>> 4. Please include a "try again" button, so that you can do edit -  
>> validate - edit - validate cycles easily.
> Besides the fact that this button wouldn't be able to check resources  
> first submitted by file upload, I'm not sure to see the point here as  
> browsers can already refresh pages.

That's because you know that refreshing the page does a revalidation. Most  
users won't be aware of that...

>> 5. I think it is wrong to say "this document has not passed the  
>> Appendix C tests" for documents that the tests don't apply to (such as  
>> HTML); better to say that the tests weren't run since they don't apply.
> Indeed, we'll see what can be done.
>> 6. .intro    Property  margin doesn't exist : 0 0 0 0
>>     .intro {width: 60%; border: thin black solid; background-color:  
>> #ccf; float: left; margin: 0 0 0 0}
>>     What's wrong with 'margin'?
> I couldn't reproduce this, can you give us the URI to Unicorn's results?


By the way, I now see that it says "This document has passed the test: W3C  
HTML Validator" even though it has two errors, and the bar is coloured red.

Best wishes,

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:46:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:28 UTC