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: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:18:20 +0900
To: "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120730161819.GB49361@sideshowbarker>
"Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, 2012-07-30 07:59 -0700:

> > 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.
> For clarification, I suggested this as an author could well know what
> he’s doing,

I'd suggest that optimizing checkers for users who know what they are doing
is generally the wrong optimization to make. As a user who generally knows
what he's doing I don't mind getting additional helpful error messages that
I can just ignore. But were I a user who didn't know what he's doing, I
would be really glad to have some additional messages from the validator
that might help get closer to becoming a user who knows what he's doing.

> and hence doesn’t need to be told what otherwise valid
> elements or attributes to use. :)

That's the case as well for some other kinds of messages we currently omit.
Unlike some previous validators, the goal of this one is not to tell users
that they pass or fail, and give them a badge. Instead the goal it to help
users catch problems in their markup they might otherwise have not found,
and in some cases to inform them of problems outside of the document itself
(e.g., the fact that particular features are not implemented in browsers,
despite being part of the spec, or to inform them about problems in HTTP
headers, such as using the non-standard X-UA-Compatible header.

So in that regard the validator is essentially as linter, and as with other
linters, there's not universal agreement among all users about what level
of "helpful" messages to include. Some users want more, some users want
less. To compare it to some other linters: Some users are quite happy with
JSLint. Some users aren't. If they were happy, we'd not have JSHint.

Anyway, I recently was made aware of a valitor.nu-based validator at
http://validator.keegan.st/ (from Keegan Street) that has a filter feature
in the (post-validation) Web UI to allow you to filter out any classes of
messages and/or any particular message you don't want to see. I've talked
with Henri a bit about the idea of merging that filter feature into the
upstream validator.nu code. If we can agree it's a good idea, that would
mean it'd eventually be part of the default UI for the validator.nu and W3C
Nu Markup Validation UIs.


Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 16:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18:06 UTC