W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2001

Error reporting (Re: Error numbering)

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:47:36 +0100 (BST)
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108061139320.370-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Terje Bless wrote:

> On 06.08.01 at 04:34, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> >Why are we currently using <ul>?
> 
> Because OL is visually noisy and I'm not entirely convinced it would be a
> win. OTOH, I'm not entirely convinced a list is the proper form for the
> output so YMMV. :-)

I agree: I don't really like list.

Take a look at the new Page Valet and Code Valet: I've incorporated my
recent SP updates to give what I regard as much improved error
reporting.  Each error is given an ID, though not (now) a human-
readable number.

> >That way one could easily say: "Hey, look at error Nr. 5, that's where the
> >problems come from!"
> 
> The idea certainly has merit, and the problem should be dealt with somehow.
> Does anyone have suggestions -- in addition to or instead of making the
> output a numbered list -- for how the output could be improved?

Each error is already identified by (line=??, column=??).  With the
XMLMessageReporter-based reporting eliminating bogus reports (like
treating "start tag was here" as a separate error), it should also
become clearer.

I'm contemplating at this point whether we could benefit from some
clientside script that will link the error message reports to the
markup display.

-- 
Nick Kew

Site Valet - the essential service for anyone with a website.
<URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 06:47:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:59 GMT