W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > February 2007

Re: RSS 1.0: problems with feed, validator, CPAN module or specification?

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:09:27 +0100
Message-Id: <7D40B9C7-283F-45B8-9597-1AB39B08F784@w3.org>
Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'QA IG' <www-qa@w3.org>, 'Users of the FeedValidator' <feedvalidator-users@lists.sourceforge.net>, danbri@danbri.org
To: Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>

Hello Brian, Hi all.

On Feb 7, 2007, at 19:15 , Brian Kelly wrote:
>    However as validators are of such importance to W3C and as the  
> QA group
> has an interest in the QA processes for ensuring standards and (I  
> assume)
> related applications such as validators, I think it would be useful to
> identify what went wrong in this case

What do *you* think went wrong? I'm thinking everything went rather  
well: a small bug in the implementation of a slightly faulty  
specification was found, reported, fixed, and added to a regression  
test suite. Hopefully the small problems in the spec will also get  
fixed soon.

> note a colleague who is a software developer felt that most
> developers wouldn't have such a faith in validators as I do - but  
> if you
> can't trust the validators, what's the point of validation?

Maybe faith is better left for ideas, religions and such immaterial  
things. Validators are useful tools, but still tools, worldly and  
imperfect. A bug in a dark corner of their code does not change the  
fact that validators are massively useful for people to adopt  
technologies - especially when said bug gets squashed within 24 hours  
of being reported.

> http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/validators-dont-always- 
> work/
> Comments welcome.

Seeing as everyone is commenting on weblogs...

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 10:09:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:25 UTC