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

Re: behaviour of validator with script and noscript

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:46:32 +0100 (BST)
To: Maria Moore <M.L.Moore@utas.edu.au>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0410120520400.1714@hugin.webthing.com>

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Maria Moore wrote:

>	 This person responded as
> follows: Most of the "invalid" code is either an overly strict
> interpretation irrelevant to most web browsers

u kan wreed thiss?  Zat's write, ye brane kan korect misteaks.
Spillchucking wud b "overly strict" and "irrelevant".

(I would try a better illustration mangling syntax and grammar,
if I could be confident of treading the line between making a point
and becoming totally incomprehensible).

It's possible, though unlikely, that the above could be part of an
informed opinion.

>	 or failure of the tool to
> cope with a valid use of noscript tags.

That's tells us for certain (s)he simply doesn't have a clue.
An informed view might concievably take issue with parts of the
standard and call them irrelevant, but certainly wouldn't complain
of "failure of the tool", nor would it thus misuse the word "valid".

-- 
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 04:47:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:15 GMT