W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2003

RE: Help Wanted: Test Cases for "Fussy" Mode

From: Frankie <frankieh@iinet.net.au>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:10:22 +0800
To: "W3C" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MCEKJDCFAKOIACBMPEICCEHILDAA.frankieh@iinet.net.au>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-validator-request@w3.org
>[mailto:www-validator-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Terje Bless
>Sent: Sunday, 31 August 2003 2:36 AM
>To: W3C Validator
>Subject: Help Wanted: Test Cases for "Fussy" Mode
>Hash: SHA1
>While feedback on the «Fussy» parse mode has been generally 
>positive — with a
>few notable exceptions :-) — it seems clear that it is currently 
>uhm, «Fussy».
>To help us better fine-tune this, I would ask that anyone with a 
>good example of cases where «Fussy» mode is excessively fussy — 
>e.g. produces
>a gazillion errors instead of one or two, or complains of things 
>that are not
>really problems under any circumstances — let us know. Please, if 
>reduce your examples to a minimal test case (it reduces the time 
>we have to
>spend on doing it) and indicate whether we may include your example in our
>internal test suite.
>The «canonical» example right now, of beeing excessively fussy, is a long
>table without a <tbody> element (which gets an error for every 
>single <tr>).
>Also welcome would be examples of where «Fussy» mode actually 
>does its job;
>namely catches errors that would normally have been overlooked.
>- -- 
>"Hath no man's dagger here a point for me?"   - Leonato, Governor 
>of Messina.
>                   See Project Gutenberg 
><URL:http://promo.net/pg/> for more.


How about just making it a "helpful suggestions" checkbox.
Since thats to the point, newbie friendly, and positive in feeling.


Received on Saturday, 30 August 2003 22:12:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:38 UTC