- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:00:39 +0900
- To: Bachu <bachu9@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Feb 15, 2007, at 03:11 , Bachu wrote: > Hai I am Bachu from India, why is that in w3.org has 7% of pages ie > 14 pages didnt pass the w3 validation? is this some error in > validator or in the pages ? > Hello Bachu. Like Jukka, I am wondering where you got these numbers. There are millions of pages (literally) on w3.org Web servers, so 14 pages definitely isn't 7%. Also, when you say "w3 validation", what do you mean? There are many validation services at w3c - markup validation, CSS validation, Feed validation, RDF, P3P, etc. Assuming your message ultimately means "why does www.w3.org have some pages that are not valid HTML", I can give a few elements of answers. * While some proportion of the documents on w3.org (all of lists.w3.org, wiki pages and w3c blogs) are managed by a CMS or some piece of software, a large number of pages are written "by hand", by a lot of different people (staff, collaborators, working-group participants). A lot of these pages are also edited with amaya [1], which produces valid markup - always. * Given the way the site is edited, it is prone to errors. We therefore have a quality control process using tools such as the LogValidator [2] which sends a weekly report to the staff, listing the most popular documents on the www.w3.org site that do not validate, and the staff collectively works on improving them. Our last results give about 98% of validity in the ~2000 most popular HTML documents on www.w3.org - not perfect, but given that most of these are edited by hand, it's not bad. And of course, given the iterative QA process, the figure is bound to improve. We also have an opt-in service for people to receive personalized weekly reports about the validity of their recently edited documents (since all of our site is in CVS and we have their history) or about the validity of an area of the site they manage. * The "official" pages on the W3C website, that is, the standards/ technical reports, are all validated before publication. And since quality goes way beyond validation, they are also checked for broken links, spelling mistakes (via an automatic spell checker) Hope this answers your questions. -- olivier
Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 01:00:50 UTC