- From: Josh King <skierx@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:03:21 -0400
- To: public-evangelist@w3.org
Karl, While it is certainly clever and could be useful, I think it is impractical for all but those websites where validating pages is a status symbol rather than a requirement. If an XHTML page is delivered via the correct MIME type (application/xhtml+xml) then catching these errors after the fact would result in a horrible user experience for those visitors who see the site before the author is able to correct the error (e.g. Parse error on line ...). Validation of pages should be taken care of preemptively by software (like HTML Tidy), rather than after the fact by a human being. Recently there were some heated discussions (see http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/06/17/validation_m/index.php and links from it) venting frustration about validiation. Much of this angst came from the fact that the designers were having to correct bazillions of small errors and as a result they became annoyed (rightly so). This Feed Validator makes it easier to find these errors, but the burden still remains on the site maintainer and this is why I feel that this solution is only useful in small static sites where validation is optional. We should let machines do the grunt work while we do the fun stuff. Cheers, Josh King
Received on Monday, 5 July 2004 14:03:22 UTC