W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > December 2006

RE: Proposed changes in warning handling in the CSS validator

From: Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:51:05 -0600
Message-ID: <78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B838FF5@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>, "CSS validator list" <www-validator-css@w3.org>

Hi Olivier,

I think ideally the service provided by the validator would be
structured as two separate tools: a validator and a lint-like best
practices checker.  People wanting, or needing for business purposes,
the gold seal of 'validity' would I think generally prefer to not
receive warnings along with that.  An extra click to have a tool provide
suggestions would I think be highly preferable, and would help newbies
better understand the difference.  (The link for warnings and
suggestions should be highly visible, right next to the Congrats

 If that would push scope beyond what's practical, I think your proposal
below is a good step forward.  I agree with your judgment that the color
warnings are alienating more people than they are helping.

Best wishes,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-validator-css-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-validator-css-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> olivier Thereaux
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:59 AM
> To: CSS validator list
> Subject: Proposed changes in warning handling in the CSS validator
> Dear all,
> As a follow-up to the (many!) discussions which took place 
> here about the warnings in the CSS validator, here's a 
> summary of the current situation, and a proposed improvement.
> Currently:
> * the CSS validator has two "levels" of warnings, high and 
> low priority
> * options can be set to show no warning, only high priority, 
> normal report or all warnings
>    (which is inconsistent with having only two levels of warnings...
>    and that really puzzles me. Maybe the original developers 
> will know.)
> * by default, the validator shows all warnings
> * ... I don't really know what the rationale is behind the 
> classification of warnings into high or low priority
> Proposed:
> * keep the two levels of warnings
> * keep the option to choose the amount of warnings, but only 
> have the choices to
>    - show no warning
>    - show only high level warnings
>    - show all warnings
> * by default, show only "high priority" warnings. Those who 
> care can ask for more. (the validator should give a hint that 
> there were low priority warnings if they are turned off)
> * split the warnings using the following rule of thumb:
>    - warnings related to CSS syntax, deprecated values, etc 
> => high priority
>    - warnings related to accessibility, good practices => low priority
>   ( attached is the proposed splitting amongst existing warnings )
> * in the works (but for later) are new, more intelligent 
> checks about colour clashes
> One of the consequences of that is that the (rather 
> unpopular) accessibility-related warnings on color and 
> background color will not be present when running with the 
> "default" validation parameters. I gave it a long thought, 
> and although the "no-color" warnings are well- intentioned, 
> they are imperfect, almost out of scope, and alienating more 
> people than they are helping. I am convinced that showing 
> them only to those who want to do a thorough check is the way to go.
> Comments, suggestions, disagreement welcome. As usual, please 
> keep the discussion constructive and polite.
> Thanks,
> olivier
> --
> olivier Thereaux - W3C - http://www.w3.org/People/olivier/ 
> W3C Open Source Software: http://www.w3.org/Status
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 18:18:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:42 UTC