- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:26:13 -0400
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-qa-dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Hi Dom, On Mar 13, 2008, at 14:24 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > I've noted a few small differences between the layout for the markup > validator and the css validator: Not implying that these are right or wrong, but here are the reasons behind these discrepancies. > * the tabs in the CSS validator reads "Validate by...", while the > markup validator only reads "By ..." I personally loathe the "validate by" repeated 4 times. In a first installment it was "by ...", as a way of following the tagline Check the markup ... by URI ... etc Some people adamantly argued that this was bad for accessibility. In the case of the CSS validator, I guess nobody noticed it stayed as originally designed, and we're trying to avoid using the terms "validate" and "valid" for css anyway. > * there is more space between "More options" and the check button in > the CSS Validator than in the Markup validator Which browser? > * the markup validator has always a Home link (even on its home page), > while the CSS validator only has the home link when not on the home > page > * the markup validator says "About..." and "Docs" where the css > validator reads "About" and "Documentation" > * the download link in the CSS validator could probably be removed (as > it was from the validator) Good points, noted. > (as another aside, I'm not sure that using "URI" is very user- > friendly; > "Web address" or "Page address" might be more largely understood) I don't think anybody complained about this, especially since the "By URI" is the default view and the label for the URI field says "address". So, hopefully this is a painless way to "educate" about the term "URI"? -- olivier
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 12:26:54 UTC