- From: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 16:41:24 +0000
- To: "O'Guin, Phaewryn" <JDO09280@ccv.vsc.edu>, Jens Oliver Meiert <jens@meiert.com>, Alexander <aralni@mail.ru>
- Cc: W3C WWW Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <abcb361a-8907-e4f8-0b73-ecf920dfcbbb@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Phaewryn O'Guin, wrote: > I think the reason why people have always used them have been either to boost their own egos ("I'm a good website designer and I can prove it because LOOK - I HAS A BUTTON!") or as a requirement of a cheap website design course they are taking ("My website design course requires that my site I built as part of my course validates and my instructor wants the button on my site to save them from actually having to check my code because they are a lazy overpaid POS."). I respectfully disagree. When "Valid HTML 4.01 Strict" buttons were in vogue, I would routinely add them at the bottom of any page I authored or modified. The button was linked to the validator using <A href="http://validator.w3.org/check/referer"> and the idea was to /encourage/ visitors to click on the button if the page rendered badly (or even wrongly) in their browser. If the page was valid HTML, then the user should look to his/her environment to see what might be the cause of the problem; if the page was /invalid/, then there was always a link to "mailto:webmaster@..." to allow the problem to be reported. > no-one at w3C gives any shits if the buttons exist at all, much less if they are updated. Hardly surprising when you read the disclaimer : > The Nu Html Checker (v.Nu) is an ongoing experiment in better HTML > checking, and its behavior remains subject to change. In particular, > because new types of error checks continue to be actively added to the > checker, there is no guarantee provided that if the checker reports > zero errors for a particular document at one point in time, it will > report zero errors for that same document at some later point in time. > > The Nu Html Checker should not be used as a means to attempt to > unilaterally enforce pass/fail conformance of documents to any > particular specifications; it is intended solely as a checker, not as > a pass/fail certification mechanism. > Philip Taylor
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2019 16:42:11 UTC