W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2007

Re: New QA weblog article: from Validator to Conformance Checker

From: Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:12:59 -0400
Message-ID: <dbdb69c90704200812g27e119bchd9c4a68bcba71b9a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>
Cc: "www-validator@w3.org Community" <www-validator@w3.org>

Hi, olivier..

Just tried to leave a comment over at your article and received a
"Comment Submission Error" notice that I had been posting too much in
a short amount of time.. Whoopsie.. If this is not a technical glitch
and is indeed something masked as coming from me, it's not, and I
would *LOVE* to know what IP address they're coming from if something
is occurring.. :)

That aside, attached is the comment I was leaving for you.. Never know.. :)

Peace..

Cindy

- :: -
http://CindySueCausey.blogspot.com
Georgia Voices That Count, 2005
Talking Rock, GA, USA


----------- COMMENT RE "SAXing up the Markup Validator" -----------

Cindy Sue Causey
ButterflyBytes@gmail.com
http://CindySueCausey.blogspot.com


Hi, olivier..

This was great.. Enjoy when the human side comes across in things this
technical.. :)

With respect to where you said: 'Some users of the validator will be
puzzled to see their once-validating documents now rejected by the
validator. It is a natural reaction, particularly from users who tend
to consider the validator as a "reference", forgetful that any
software may have bugs, ignoring the too-often-seen note that "the
validator's XML support has some limitations"'

A few weeks ago, recognized myself that I hadn't barely noticed that
"support" statement during all these years I've been using the
Validator.. That observation, though, immediately brought to mind to
wonder how many *do* miss it and then end up posting questions on the
various related listservs..

Tried to come up with options that might help make those kinds of
statements *pop* to individuals like myself who focus, zero in on one
aspect of something, thus successfully completely blocking out
everything else..

Only things that immediately come to mind are changing the color(s)
(of the statement only) regularly.. A pain, yes..

Or..

Maybe someone could design a non-intrusive once-a-session toggle that
appears immediately adjacent to the submit button then disappears into
the sunset the rest of the time, the toggle being to accept that the
user, yes, accepts whatever limitation statement is currently at
hand..

As always, just thinking out loud in case it inspires another's
recollections of anything else more appropriate..

Peace and best wishes.. :)




On 3/28/07, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:
>
> There is a new section in the QA weblog [1] for rough, less polished
> little writeups about bugs, design issues and so on in the tools we
> develop at W3C. The section is called "Bugs Life"
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/QA/archive/w3cqa_news/bugs_life/
>
> The first little article is noodling about validation and
> conformance, a topic I think may be of interest to this list.
>
> * SAXing up the Markup Validator: from Validator to Conformance Checker

< snip >

> 	 http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/03/validation_to_conformance.html
>
> Your thoughts (as comments on the article or here in the mailing-
> list) much welcome.
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 15:13:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:24 GMT