- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:45:13 -0500
- To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, www-tag@w3.org
If the browser is required to validate on demand, (no, not by writing a script that gets the DOM that gets the validation routine, etc, but by a simple button press), then the user at least has the option of returning the results to the originator. It can even be automated as failure results are now for MS systems; the system asks the user for permission to send a message to Microsoft concerning the error. Validation is just one of the options for error detection. That strategy takes advantage of a culture in which the user does feedback software problems to vendors. It is how we do business now and there is no reason to think it won't work for the web. I don't think it possible to clean up what's out there without involving the customer to vendor loop. That is where the feedback is going. len -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com] If I believed that changing the messages the validator provided would have a positive effect, I would suggest it. However, my real point is that the browser is the ultimate arbiter of what works, not the validator. I don't think any level of improvement to the validator - except perhaps turning it into a browser - is going to change that. If you don't modify user-agent behavior, the feedback loop will remain limp and mostly useless.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 09:46:22 UTC