W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2007

Re: DogFood (and inline/block constraints)

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:06:17 +0900
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20071206060616.GJ19477@sideshowbarker>
Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, 2007-12-06 00:21 -0500:

>  If the answer to the question of "why does the html5 conformance checker 
>  produce this message?" is "because the spec says so"; and the answer to "why 
>  does the spec say so" is "because previous specs said so"; and the 
>  "solution" in many cases is to simply add back in "noise" <div> tags, then 
>  this non-answer coupled with the unfriendliness of the conformance checker 
>  messages (something I have great sympathy for as it is often very hard when 
>  faced with bad input and complicated/confusing specs to make correct and 
>  simple suggestions) coupled with the sheer number of messages produced 
>  coupled with the perceived "make-workness" of the answer will cause many 
>  people to not bother.

We had some discussion about that on IRC yesterday, with sort of a
similar comment from Philip Taylor:

  http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20071205#l-343
  There are far more significant errors on most web pages, so
  perhaps more benefit would come from a conformance checker that
  people will use more often because it doesn't complain at them
  so much about minor things with little practical benefit, rather
  than a conformance checker which flags more issues and drives
  away more users. 

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 06:06:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:12 GMT