next validator

Inasmuch as you're my validator hero I thought I'd try to get you to
join in the fun at http://www.w3.org/WAI/RC/ which is the old name
(Rating & Certification) for what is now called ER (evaluation &
repair).  We need all the help we can get.

In particular in making my "test" website that intends to demonstrate
the usefulness of style sheets: http://w3.gorge.net/love25/webspin.htm 
(it links to two other versions of the same material) I used images as
links and two of them are a part of the ER effort - one for HTML
validation via validator.w3.org and the other Bobby - and learned a bit
about such thingies.

1) Having two "validators" is cumbersome.  They also create a problem:
if I validate the HTML, then use Bobby to get approval and use the URI
from it as the link to prove the site is still accessible, the HTML no
longer validates because the address of the Bobby test contains
something ("&browser" and "&output") that chokes it (but shouldn't since
it's an address inside quotation marks and shouldn't be subject to the
same constraints as HTML code).

2) Bobby should have a stripped-down version for this sort of use. 
There is no need for displaying the web page yet again since one was
just looking at it; the loadtime section is superfluous.  Just the
facts, ma'am.  Is it still OK to use the logo?  If not why?

We need a good tool for the "E" part, the "R" part still needs a lot of
planning: do you rewrite the HTML, even to switching to CSS (I think
there's a program that does this) and ship it back or do you just make
the general guideline type suggestions.  The former is usually
preferable especially since the code is there for the author to tweak
and learn from.  The latter assumes that the guidelines are crystal
clear which is clearly not so as proven by your tables inquiry.

Come on, Josh!
-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com

Received on Thursday, 18 June 1998 09:26:39 UTC