W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Preparing for validator 0.8.6 release

From: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:10:32 -0500
To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Cc: public-qa-dev@w3.org, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>
Message-ID: <nnb8wb3ootz.fsf@dev-null.guilds.net>
Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> writes:

> On Friday 04 December 2009, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> On Thursday 03 December 2009, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
>> > Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>, 2009-12-03 12:12 -0500:
>> > > Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> writes:
>> > > > I think validator 0.8.6 is ready to be released.  I've updated the
>> > > > "what's new" section, see
>> > > > http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/whatsnew.html#v086
>> > >
>> > > Mike Smith and Yudai Iwasaki have been working some on the html5
>> > > validator and were considering working on improving the interactions
>> > > with the markup validator.  I do not know where they stand on that but
>> > > figured I should make the introduction.
>> >
>> > Since the last time we deployed a new W3C validator release, there
>> > have been some significant changes to the upstream (validator.nu)
>> > sources for the HTML5 facet, and Henri Sivonen is now working on
>> > some validator.nu parser changes. So I would propose that we
>> > consider waiting to release until Henri gets those changes
>> > completed and landed. I anticipate that Henri will probably get
>> > that done before the 17th, so perhaps we could plan to do deploy
>> > 0.8.6, with the updated HTML5 facet, by the 17th.
> What's the status of this?  The 0.8.6 release didn't happen yet, I'd like to 
> retry soon.  Next week?

Adding Mike to see if he can fill us in there.

Apologies for the delay in responding.  For a release either this week
or next I can help out, preferably not on a Tuesday.

>> Works for me.  Olivier raised some issues on www-validator so this will
>>  give us time to discuss those as well.
> There was no response to my message in that thread so I think the case is 
> closed for now.


I see strengths to both your and Olivier's arguments.  Catching a simple
typo, even if the tag is not used properly, has benefits to the user but
in some cases could be misleading.  To do it properly as you say would
take quite a bit of work.

Unfortunately we have no stats on how often it is helpful versus hurtful
to influence a decision.  Should we remove it and get complaints we can
reconsider adding it back.  Leaving it in I would suggest we come up
with a concise caveat explaining validation would need to be checked

Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Systems Team
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 13:10:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:56 UTC