- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:06:15 -0400
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Thinking out loud here... It does seem that we have a serious problem when the vast majority of sites fail to validate. None of us like compiler warnings or errors; and we are certainly concerned that if a module 'normally' builds with scads of errors, we'll miss one that really ought to have attention paid to it. GCC has a whole pile of options for controlling what kinds of warnings you want to see (or rather, don't want to see). <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning-Options>. It's clear that some site authors do not care about some classes of potential problems: * they intend to use inline markup and not CSS * they do not care that XML serialization would be problematic * ... Should we classify the MUSTs and SHOULDs in the spec. into broad groups so that the validator can in turn classify the errors and warnings? "If this problem remains, your site will have problems with XXXX". David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 14:06:50 UTC