- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:43:10 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6259 --- Comment #3 from Harald-René Flasch <harald-rene.flasch@hotmail.com> 2008-12-02 18:43:10 --- Thank you for your prompt replies :o) OK, it is right (of course) that validating by URI or direct input are completely different paradigms. I also agree with "Dominique Hazael-Massieux". When validating by direct input a warning or information may be displayed when there is no <meta http-equiv /> which makes it less confusing + helps web masters to validate before uploading to the web server. The warning should contain exactly what "Olivier Thereaux" said here so it is not possible to forget this and everyone will understand it (imho). Validating by direct input is a handy utility to validate quickly from every source but it should not assume an encoding (imho). So only that feature must be adjusted. Validating via URI remains the same of course. Never mind what the answer would be: w3.org offers great stuff and I wish that more web developers, web designers, web masters use it in order to offer "better" web pages (regardless of which browser users are using) for all people. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 18:43:20 UTC