Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for non-conformance!)

Abigail (abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl)
Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:02:38 +0100 (MET)


From: Abigail <abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Message-Id: <199602130302.EAA18098@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Subject: Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for non-conformance!)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:02:38 +0100 (MET)

MegaZone wrote:

[ Error counts of pages ]

++ First of all, I've yet to see a validation system stay up to the minute
++ with new extensions.  I don't think it is at all fair to penalize pages that
++ use extensions if the underlaying code is solid.

It's not all penalizing pages, it's giving _service_ to the visitors
of the search engine. No one forces you to pay attention to such ratings.
Besides, things like <tag1> <tag2> </tag1> </tag2>, or <dd> without <dl>
are not at all likely to suddenly become legal.

++ And I'll tell you how I've used it - important warnings are in bold text,
++ in 2.0 they are also bright red.  It makes them leap out so user can't
++ miss them.  Since I maintain the support pages, these notes are things we
++ never want a user to miss.

Not quite. It won't show very well if the user has a bright red background,
overruling the document settings. And certain groups of colour blind people
won't see red text very well, if at all. As far as I know, you cannot
switch the <font color = '...'> off in Netscape 2.0. So while you get more
attention from most of your customers, for some the message gets complete
lost.



Abigail