- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:09:27 +0100
- To: Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'QA IG' <www-qa@w3.org>, 'Users of the FeedValidator' <feedvalidator-users@lists.sourceforge.net>, danbri@danbri.org
Hello Brian, Hi all. On Feb 7, 2007, at 19:15 , Brian Kelly wrote: > However as validators are of such importance to W3C and as the > QA group > has an interest in the QA processes for ensuring standards and (I > assume) > related applications such as validators, I think it would be useful to > identify what went wrong in this case What do *you* think went wrong? I'm thinking everything went rather well: a small bug in the implementation of a slightly faulty specification was found, reported, fixed, and added to a regression test suite. Hopefully the small problems in the spec will also get fixed soon. > note a colleague who is a software developer felt that most > developers wouldn't have such a faith in validators as I do - but > if you > can't trust the validators, what's the point of validation? Maybe faith is better left for ideas, religions and such immaterial things. Validators are useful tools, but still tools, worldly and imperfect. A bug in a dark corner of their code does not change the fact that validators are massively useful for people to adopt technologies - especially when said bug gets squashed within 24 hours of being reported. > http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/validators-dont-always- > work/ > > Comments welcome. Seeing as everyone is commenting on weblogs... http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/02/bugs_and_qa.html Cheers, -- olivier
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 10:09:26 UTC