W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 1996

Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for...

From: Abigail <abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:15:45 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199602122315.AAA16878@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
To: www-html@w3.org
You, Jonsm@aol.com wrote:
++ I would suggest these categories:
++ 1) Errors - pages containing severe errors like overlapping tags,
++ quote/comment problems. Any page that can't be parsed by a SGML system gets
++ this rating. This doesn't mean all of the tags/attributes will be understood,
++ it just means that the page is not lexically correct.

That's quite hard to do. While
<img src = foo.gif alt = "bla bla>Text <img src = foo.gif"> or
<!-- -- -- Comment comment -- --> Text text <!-- -- Foo -->
are most likely "errors", they _are_ correct SGML. In fact, part of 
the problem often is that such errors are correct SGML, but with
a totally different behaviour than the author expected (or the
browser implemented).

Such an error checker should then 'guess' the intended meaning, ignoring
the SGML.

Received on Monday, 12 February 1996 18:15:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:17 UTC