W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Question

From: Rahul Khurana <rahulk@visiontechcamps.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 19:54:53 -0800
To: "www-validator" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <159d8e96c8f.b42a6f4575003.8910053572122028275@visiontechcamps.com>


I wouldn't say it's a failing, more that it's the "ideal" goal - even if not too many sites reach it, its still a measure of how close you are to having your site be 100% strictly correct, even if other factors like CMS's or faulty browsers require you to have errors, it's still a good measure of how far you have to go if you want to minimize the risk of a certain browser choosing to render your website in an unanticipated way. 



As a practical matter, I'd say having a few errors on your site isn't a major flaw, nor is it something that invalidates the test - the test isn't designed as a way to judge whether a site "passes" or "fails", it's more of a tool for a developer to use to see errors in their code. If you choose to ignore a few errors as a developer, that's totally on you.




----------------

Rahul Khurana

https://www.visiontechcamps.com

rahulk@visiontechcamps.com
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2017 03:55:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 January 2017 03:55:30 UTC