W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > January 2005

Re: validator - how true is it?

From: Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw@view.net.au>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:26:09 +1030 (CST)
To: www-validator-css@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0501162209030.10484@calypso.view.net.au>

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>
> * <ceo@alierra.com> wrote:
>> Validator has a very good concept behind it.  But the way it is
>> programmed right now creates chaos on inexperienced web users.
>> For some unknown reason many lay users consider Validator to be
>> their GOD and they believe that the results are 100% true. They
>> take a Validator report and start bombarding design companies
>> that their sites have a great number of errors which must be
>> fixed immediately. And whenever you try to explain that these
>> errors may stay unfixed they do not want to hear anything about
>> that.
>
> Of course not, you would rather need to argue that the errors are not
> errors or that fixing them would cause unavoidable loss of quality or
> functionality. Such "errors" are however rare in practise. As are the
> cases you mention here, where errors may stay unfixed; you would need
> to know how future browser (search engine robots, etc) releases treat
> the errors in order to make statements about that. But maybe you mean

If it is true that "inexperienced Web users" are turning in droves to
the Validator, and the developers of non-compliant documents are coming to
this list and whining about it, that is a great victory for the
Validator guys.

It will mean the end of tools that generate html non-compliant with
the claimed doctype, and perhaps the end of the designers such as
<ceo@alierra.com> who used them.  Probably, though, his _next_
site page will be compliant.

Wholly good.
Received on Sunday, 16 January 2005 11:56:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:14:15 GMT