W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2004

Re: MarkUp Validator's new clothes

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:07:25 +0200
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: validators community <www-validator@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <b02010202-1033-024C15F68FA711D88B730030657B83E8@[193.157.66.23]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:

>>* no right-hand navigation bar, I think it just distracts and takes
>>space
>
>Yes, your demo (earlier today) quite convinced me that (at least now
>that the most important links are in the horizontal top bar) the
>righthand navbar could be kept only for the homepage, and real-estate
>reclaimed on other pages, especially results page. So +1 on that, and
>I'll work on implementing that on our current layout.

I disagree. The navigation should be consistent between all pages on the site;
and code-wise that also means they should share the same underlying template.
The original layout for this included the brunt of links only on the front
page -- with a smaller set on result pages and non-top pages -- and was
plagued with out of sync links and 404 Compliance.



>>* the address of the validated page is not locked inside an <input>
>>field but rather an active link to the page
>
>Well, the markup validator gives it as a link if valid, in the field to
>revalidate if not. I suppose consistency wouldn't hurt, though.

Please note that this design is in direct response to a feature request that
the URL be available and *editable* in the result page to support Revalidate
with an altered URL.


>>* it does not include the overly large and distracting THIS PAGE IS NOT
>>VALID HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL! banner. I'd say it's not needed
>
>I guess something needs to say valid/not. But it does not have to be a
>big banner, certainly.

The exact styling is debatable, certainly, but please note that the great
emphasis on the text in question is in direct response to a feature request;
the original layout made the Valid/Invalid status too difficult to discern at
a glance.



>>* it does not include all this legal stuff in the footer, whether it
>>must I do not know; I would not put it there
>
>That's been imposed, for good reasons I reckon. I am not the expert, and
>I am happy with their inclusion in a way that is not too showy, e.g as
>Terje did it.

FWIW, I would like nothing better than to completely nuke this text. It's
inappropriate, unneccesary, and not even legally valid. However, I do not
think it is worth picking a fight with Legal over. It's there for the lawyers
and fairly inconspicous for normal people.


>>* it looks much much better, IMHO, and the styles are cross- browser,
>>the validator beta has issues with IE/Windows.
>
>Quite frankly, though I don't pretend to be a style-sheet expert, I
>would say that IE/Win has issues with the validator. Nuance...

MSIE:win gets special dispensation, despite beeing crap, due to its huge
marketshare. Within reason...

But this bug (in MSIE:win) should definitely be worked around. It is possible
to fix, and even without too great contortions once we figure out what it is
that is triggering it, I think.


- -- 
"I don't want to learn to manage my anger;
 I want to FRANCHISE it!" -- Kevin Martin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3

iQA/AwUBQH/ai6PyPrIkdfXsEQJjWACfTQ3oyzMIej35lY5F/aE0r2se6iMAoNfm
WA52TvRo6Hnxo2aoNFpoRnOR
=e3DX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 09:07:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:13 GMT