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

Re: checklink: very nice

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:23:28 +0100
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: Tex Texin <tex@XenCraft.com>
Message-ID: <A01060006-1022-980AD250FFEA11D6ACB000039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

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".

No, we do have every intent of implementing them; it's just that given
finite resources we have to give priority to items that fall within the
core functionality of the tool.

They are "wishlist" items, but that only implies that they get lesser
priority then core features; not that they will never be implemented.


You may be getting the wrong impression from this thread /because/ we
really do want to add these features and are somewhat apologetic that we
have not been able to yet (and can't promise anything in relation to when
we might be able to).


>>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.

Not at all. The problem here is that this is a rather hard point to explain
clearly, and any attempt to do so that fails in its intent is likely to do
more harm then good. There are several good explanations of this difference
in existence and we have every intent of either linking to (one or more of)
these (as, indeed, we allready do to some extent) or incorporating an
equivalent document into the documentation for the W3C MarkUp Validator.


Thanks for the feedback!
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2002 15:23:31 GMT

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