- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:17:38 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- CC:
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 UTC