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

Re: Proposed changes in warning handling in the CSS validator

From: Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:51:10 -0500
Message-ID: <dbdb69c90612140951n75b607f0taa92fa12f85dfe50@mail.gmail.com>
To: WWW-Validator-CSS <www-validator-css@w3.org>

MHO: I like the thought that, even on the default setting, one would
somehow be visibly "reminded" one last time that CSS validation could
still be taken further.. Along the lines of an old post of mine re the
(X)HTML validator and visibly, relatedly linking to the CSS validator
(rather than keeping one's fingers crossed that those validating are
at a level of web authoring such that they know to search out a CSS
validator on their own)..

For any number of reasons, be they cognitive, time constraint related,
or other, people will only see what is right in front of them and no
further.. Including something along the lines of Philip's Result #2
will remind a respectable number of individuals that their style sheet
has perceivably passed the default barest minimum but that more
remains that could be improved..

With thoughts of transparent backgrounds in mind, hypothetical Result
#2 could maybe even (politely) point out that webpage accessibility
may (theoretically, possibly) be at risk should the user choose not to
follow up on the secondary validation.. With the higher press website
accessibility is receiving these days, that disclosure alone would
certainly catch the eye of some..

Peace.. :)

Cindy

- :: -
http://360.yahoo.com/Mountain_Splash
http://sixalmostseven.butterflybytes.com
Georgia Voices That Count, 2005
Talking Rock, GA, USA



On 12/13/06, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
< snip >
> Suppose the validator (/qua/ validator) were
> to return three possible results :
>
> Page valid.
> Page valid but one or more questionable usages.
> Page invalid.
>
> In cases (1) and (3), that is basically all the
> user needs to be told (modulo a list of errors
> for (3)); but for (2), he/she could be told
>
> 	"Your page validates successfully but there
> 	 are some questionable usages; [HYPERLINK]
> 	 re-validate with warnings enabled.[/]."
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 17:51:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:07 UTC