Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for...

Abigail (abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl)
Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:15:45 +0100 (MET)


From: Abigail <abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Message-Id: <199602122315.AAA16878@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Subject: Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for...
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:15:45 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <960212174426_320098246@emout10.mail.aol.com> from "Jonsm@aol.com" at Feb 12, 96 05:44:27 pm

You, Jonsm@aol.com wrote:
++ 
++ I would suggest these categories:
++ 
++ 1) Errors - pages containing severe errors like overlapping tags,
++ quote/comment problems. Any page that can't be parsed by a SGML system gets
++ this rating. This doesn't mean all of the tags/attributes will be understood,
++ it just means that the page is not lexically correct.

That's quite hard to do. While
<img src = foo.gif alt = "bla bla>Text <img src = foo.gif"> or
<!-- -- -- Comment comment -- --> Text text <!-- -- Foo -->
are most likely "errors", they _are_ correct SGML. In fact, part of 
the problem often is that such errors are correct SGML, but with
a totally different behaviour than the author expected (or the
browser implemented).

Such an error checker should then 'guess' the intended meaning, ignoring
the SGML.



Abigail