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

Re: Redirection breaks Revalidate

From: Peter Henderson <peterhenderson@usa.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:43:26 -0700
To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCBBJDPAHCEJEBEIKJGCIEGJCGAA.peterhenderson@usa.net>
> >When a URI which redirects to another URI is validated, it is not
possible
> >to revalidate it using the form at the top of the validation result.
>
> Ack! You're right, we missed that one. Sorry about that, we'll fix it
ASAP!
> Thanks for the quick catch!

[By the way, a workaround to revalidate redirected pages is to go down to
the link that says "link to this page (i.e. this validation result)." This
link includes the result of the redirection, not the original typed URI, so
you can click on it, and then turn on or off the options and revalidate.]
The only problem with using this very convenient text box as the form field
is that, as was previously mentioned, there is no longer a link to the page
being validated. On the pages with redirects, both the entered URI, and the
redirected URI are links; however, on the non-redirecting pages there is the
text box instead of a link. I don't have any ideas on how to include the
both functionalities efficiently (the text box so you can change the URI,
and the link to the validated page so you can click something instead of
having to type it into your browser), unless another link is added. Maybe it
could go next to the URI link (the one explaining URIs). It could say,
"Original page," or, "Validated page," or something. Wait, a better idea.
When there is the "Jump to:" line (with source, outline, parse tree, as
necessary), there could be a link to the original page there. That would be
more intuitive, since the original page really is something one can "jump"
to.

> It seems we lost the navigation links in the update. I'll see what we can
> do about restoring them quickly (I'm not quite sure how to integrate them
> in the new design).

I think it might work if the links were on the bottom. That way they
wouldn't disrupt the table or take up space at the top. At the bottom they
would be unobtrusive, yet still accessible, and they wouldn't be taking up
space at the top so the results can be closer to the top of the screen.

As long as the content length, encoding, and server fields are included,
would it be possible to include the content-type (MIME type) it is served
as? Also, I wanted to point out that while the "Valid XHTML" logos are now
referencing the www.w3.org site, the logo on the validator home page (and
some other pages) is still loading the one from the validator.w3.org site.

Sincerely,
Peter Henderson
peterhenderson@usa.net
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2001 00:40:53 GMT

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