- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:38:32 +0600
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:57:08 +0600, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Humans don't work that way. If the words "HTML (WARNING)" or "XHTML >> (WARNING)" started appearing next to over 90 percent of search results, >> people would not think that something was wrong with 90 percent of Web >> pages. They would think that something was wrong with the search >> engine. > I see no reason why that should be the case; and short of actual user > tests with well-designed warnings I don't suppose we'll ever be sure. > > I would however definitely suggest better messages, since "WARNING" > verges on being meaningless. Perhaps "HTML (corrupted)" and "XHTML > (corrupted)" for documents that cite (or imply) a standard document type > but clearly fail to conform to it, "text/html (non-standard variant)" > for text/html documents that do not cite (or imply) a standard document > type, and "XHTML (broken)" for non-well-formed XHTML. Maybe the other way round? "Valid [X]HTML" on valid documents? -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 03:38:32 UTC