- From: Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:42:30 +0100
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Terje Bless wrote: > Also welcome would be examples of where «Fussy» mode actually does its job; > namely catches errors that would normally have been overlooked. This may sound like nit-picking, but it's not intended to be -- rather, it is an attempt to ensure precision in language, which is surely vital where something as important as a validator is concerned : Are there any cases at all where "fussy" mode catches /errors/ that would normally be overlooked, as opposed to finding /infelicities/ that may well cause problems but which are not errors /qua/ errors ? To be honest, I hope that there are such cases : we already know from earlier discussions on this list that there are aspects of HTML which cannot be formally encapsulated in the DTD but which are made explicit solely in the prose : if this is indeed the case, then having "fussy" mode correctly catch and diagnose those errors /as/ errors, whilst issuing only warnings for usages that are likely to cause problems yet which violate neither the syntax nor the prose of the DTD, would be an extremely useful enhancement to the current validator functionality. Philip Taylor
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2003 15:41:31 UTC