http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4848 ot@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | ------- Comment #5 from ot@w3.org 2008-01-17 11:17 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Just a minor stylistic note; saying the DOCTYPE is “broken” is needlessly > obtuse. Rather, say that the DOCTYPE is “Inconsistent”, has a “mismatch” or > something along those lines. Be specific, without getting verbose, and > summarize the explanatory text from below in the message heading. Ack, you are right. I was trying for the wording to not be too complex but ended up making it short and ugly. Updated the wording in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-cvs/2008Jan/0039.html Thoughts? I note that I still need to copy the wording to other warning templates when we're happy with it, so I'm temporarily reopening the bug.Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 11:17:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 January 2008 11:17:43 GMT