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

Re: MarkUp Validator's new clothes

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:24:59 +0900
Message-Id: <10FE1D4F-928B-11D8-86BD-000A95E54002@w3.org>
Cc: validators community <www-validator@w3.org>
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>

On Apr 16, 2004, at 22:07, Terje Bless wrote:
>> 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

> 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.

I am not aware of these past problems, so please detail.

Now that most internal navigation is handled by the main horizontal 
bar, the righthand bar is mostly limited to external links. I have a 
hard time seeing how this would cause a lot of navigation troubles or 
out of sync links.

I agree that it would be a problem if some pages had the menu and 
others would not, but in case only ONE (homepage) had the menu and 
others no, this is just trivial to do with our current head/main/foot 
structure.

And besides, I'm sure that nuking the righthand bar would also solve 
our CSS "guillotine" glitch. (call me lazy...)


>> 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.

I have nothing against the editable URI, I was suggesting adding a link 
to the page itself.


> the original layout made the Valid/Invalid status too difficult to 
> discern at
> a glance.

Wild idea: use the fact that our top banner image is in B&W and use 
different stylesheets for  results:invalid. That would allow a much 
smaller size of text (still necessary I think), along with the Error 
number maybe (was that what the old design had?)

-- 
olivier

Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 01:25:05 GMT

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