W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Element style is missing required attribute scoped, but scoped is a boolean attribute

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:17:22 +0100
Message-ID: <50165122.2050908@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
CC: "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, www-validator@w3.org


Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Jens O. Meiert wrote:

>> The message seems well-intentioned but I could see it come off a
>> little patronizing,

> That would make a welcome change from the default state of checker
> messages (namely, impenetrable), but I don't think so.

I agree about the advantages of making the analysis less impenetrable,
but I would strongly argue against any suggestion that the validator 
should appear to patronise.

> (Ideally, the checker would merely reflect test-based monitoring for
> the actual specs here.)

Not really clear what you are suggesting.  Are you suggesting that,
as a background task, the validator should continually probe a pool
of the major browsers to identify parts of the specification that
are not almost universally supported, and then report the statistics
whenever an error relating to such a part of the specification is
generated ?  If so, I cannot see the benefit : a separate tool that
compares the specification with browserland, and which maintains
a statistics page on the web, would potentially be useful, but I do
not see this as a task for the validator, nor do I see the benefit
of reporting the statistics for only the parts of the document that
are already in error : it is the parts that are /not/ in error for
which the statistics would be more useful, is it not ?

Philip Taylor
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 09:17:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 July 2012 09:18:01 GMT