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

Re: warnings for shorttags

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:27:10 +0900
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070930072710.GB14707@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Hi Lachlan,

On Sat, Sep 29, 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Perhaps you could change the background colour of that heading to 
> yellow, add some kind of warning icon and/or change the heading to "This 
> Page Is Valid [VERSION] (With Warnings)".  I don't mind what solution 
> you use, as long as it is immediately visible to someone quickly 
> glancing at the page.

This is not a bad idea, but likely to be problematic. Some people can
get extremely aggressive if they think they "deserve" the green banner
and get something else. In such cases, you can argue all you want that
warnings are not errors, angry people won't care.

Only few of the warnings are in the "this is strictly speaking OK but
very likely to cause problem" realm, mostly they are "I had to use some
guessing, and if the guessing was wrong, it may twist the results, so
please double-check". 

e.g: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/sgml_customdtd.html

For these reasons, I think we should be extremely careful with the way
we make warnings prominent on otherwise valid/conforming documents.
Maybe a solution would be to have 
[[ Result:  	 Passed validation, 4 warning(s) ]]
be less "green", or include the little warning sign?

What do you think?
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2007 07:27:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:53 UTC