- From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:36:36 +0900
- To: public-qa-dev@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004, Ville Skyttä wrote: > +1. Then there's the issue how to mark docs that produce > errors/warnings in fussy mode. Precisely, that's where the complication comes from. If you have a look at opensp's output when feeding it a document with shorttags (otherwise valid) [[ 24/03 15:19 ot@wasabi ~% cat SHORTTAG-test.html| onsgmls -wmin-tag -wfully-tagged -wrefc -wmissing-att-name onsgmls:<OSFD>0:2:6:E: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES onsgmls:<OSFD>0:2:6:E: document type does not allow element "TITLE" here onsgmls:<OSFD>0:4:0:E: unclosed start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES onsgmls:<OSFD>0:4:0:E: document type does not allow element "UL" here onsgmls:<OSFD>0:4:34:W: empty end-tag onsgmls:<OSFD>0:5:20:E: no document element ]] If I understand onsgmls speak, that means even though the -w options are supposed to add *warnings*, it actually spits out both errors and warnings. Which means that, even if we are (were?) marking errors and warnings differently, there would be no way for us to mark fussy-induced warnings as such. In other words, the options we have at this point are, I believe: - make fussy mode optional and be happy with the fact tat it marks documents as invalid. (+ s/lax/normal/ in the fussy mode note) - remove fussy mode altogether (comment it out) The latter is unfortunate, but so will be the rants of people pointing out that the validator still marks valid documents as invalid (in this particular mode). -- olivier
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 01:41:03 UTC