- From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 15:00:52 +0100 (BST)
- To: Leo Breebaart <leo@lspace.org>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Leo Breebaart wrote: > Terje Bless <link@pobox.com> writes: > > > The concept it should get across, in two or preferably a single word, > > is that of applying stricter, perhaps excessively so, rules; that does > > use still the process of validation, but without implying anything > > about the formal validity or lack of it in the results. > > Perhaps it could be called "pedantic" checking? This not only has a > precedent of sorts in the GCC/G++ compiler flag of the same name, but is > also, I think, by itself a good layman's one-word encapsulation of the > concept as you describe it above: "applying stricter, perhaps > excessively so, rules". That's good and accurate, but I wouldn't expect the validator-using web-design audience in general to be familiar with gcc compiler flags. They're more likely to be familiar with perl, which does have a 'strict' pragma and a 'warn-all' flag, where a better analogy may be made. (If we're going for multiple configurable levels of fussiness, I'd suggest some sort of scale: - pedantic - rigorous - strict - tolerant - lax - like, whatever, dude. Why are you using this validator?) L. <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 10:01:21 UTC