- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:50:26 -0600
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
I'm not copying public-html until I find time to cite earlier discussion of this issue... On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:15 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Dec 5, 2007, at 21:29, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > But this is clearly just the start. At the present time, > > html5.validator.nu conformance checking tool identifies a gross > > number of errors: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2wywpp > > > > I imagine that the errors can be grouped into three categories: > > > > 1) errors for which my page ought to be fixed > > 2) errors for which the validator ought to be fixed > > Did you identify any errors that the validator reported but were not > errors per current spec draft? Granted, there are a number of > unfriendly messages there, but as far as I can tell, all of those > point out actual errors. > > Even "Bad value text for attribute type on XHTML element input." is > technically correct although not exactly helpful (see error class 4 > below). This message is the #1 usability bug, BTW. I think it's a spec bug. I don't think it's cost-effective to try to constrain authors in this respect. I hope this constraint is dropped from HTML 5. > > 3) errors for which the spec ought to be fixed > > > > I'm posting my early results here in the off chance that it sparks a > > discussion. > > > I identified four classes of errors: > 1) meta charset in XHTML > 2) wbr > 3) a dangling for="q" attribute > 4) lots and *lots* of cases where you have inline content where only > block content is conforming. > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 22:50:35 UTC