W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2002

Re: checklink: very nice

From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:16:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3DE11791.80780C78@i18nguy.com>
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
CC: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>, Tex Texin <tex@XenCraft.com>

Terje Bless wrote:

thanks for the comments.
 
> Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com> wrote:
> 
> >Also the todo list http://validator.w3.org/todo.html entertains link
> >checking, "fixing" html and perhaps other items suggesting more than
> >pure validation.
> 
> Yes, these are items on the TODO list. They're there because these would be
> usefull and valuable features to have. But they are _still_ on the TODO
> list -- as opposed to having been implemented -- because they are
> orthogonal to the main purpose of the Validator.

If they will never rise above the importance of adding another
validation, then perhaps indicate they will never actually get done,
because they are not central to validation. A "todo" list indicates the
intent to implement. From this thread I have the impression, the list is
a wishlist, of which the non-validation items have no intent of being
implemented and are not really "todo".

(BTW, I am not arguing, I am just explaining what I think the name
"todo" communicates.)

> 
> >And, there are other products that do lint checking
> >that are calling themselves validators...
> 
> Yes, this is one of our major problems. Very few of the "lints" out there
> actually acknowledge that they are in fact "linters" and not -- as the
> Validator aspires to be -- a formal validator. This distinction has
> typically been hard to communicate, and is not helped by the other common
> misconception that either tool is sufficient by itself.
> 
> >In any event, I claim there is a popular (mis)conception about the
> >purpose of the W3C validator and a sentence or two would clarify that.
> 
> I agree. Unfortunately I don't think "a sentence or two" is sufficient for
> this purpose.

It won't fix the common misconception. But it will clarify for actual
users of the validator what it does and doesn't do and address the
misconception for your users.

Ah well. For whatever reason, if the validator team doesn't want to let
their users know what they want the product to be and not be, then fine.
Clearly the mails to explain and justify the lack of documentation is
more work than the requested doc itself and it doesn't make sense to
belabor the point.

hth
tex

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2002 13:19:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:04 GMT