- From: Antonio Cavedoni <antonio@cavedoni.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:34:01 +0100
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
On 9 Nov 2005, at 15:01, David Dorward wrote: > Given that one error can be a consquence of another error, the order > that the errors appear in is important. I suspect grouping errors > would, while making the results less intimidating, also make them > harder to work with. In the long run, I think less intimidating means more people actually using the validator as a tool instead of being scared by it, especially on pages with 356 errors: how is one supposed to be handling *that*? But I do agree with you about errors being consequences of one another, so fixing one would fix lots of others in cascade, and I don’t think adding yet another option would be a good idea at this point. Still, I think there’s value in grouping errors as I said before: what do other people think? Is there a way to include it without breaking the current (and useful) behavior, or is it a bad idea altogether? -- Antonio
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:34:06 UTC