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

Re: Some quick ideas

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:44:42 +0100
To: Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>
cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A01060006-1022-9453FA9A009D11D79CB000039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com> wrote:

>>Keeping statistics on what sorts of errors are found is a good idea
>>(and I think Gerald had plans to implement this at some point). I've
>>logged this as Bug #85
>><URL:http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=85>.
>
>If this is implemented, could you maintain a page on W3.org that gives a
>monthly summary of the most common errors? I'm sure it would be useful.

Yes. If we implement statistics, maintaining a monthly summary should not
be a problem (read: it can be automated ;D).


>At a minimum the errors should be classified, and a weighting assigned
>to each category according to perceived severity and difficulty of
>correction. [...]

This is the hard part I'm afraid.

As a purely practical problem, all our error messages come straight from
our SGML/XML Parser OpenSP and do not map directly into the kinds of things
we usually think of as "HTML Errors". Neither do they easily fall into
categories or can be weighted in a way that makes sense.

I think that means that in practice, this feature becomes too expensive in
terms of implementation cost compared to it's benefits. But I've logged a
Enhancement request in Bugzilla for it; Bug #87
<URL:http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=87>.


-- 
I have lobbied for the update and improvement of SGML. I've done it for years.
I consider it the jewel for which XML is a setting.  It does deserve a bit or
polishing now and then.                                        -- Len Bullard
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 12:45:55 GMT

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