- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:49:54 +0900
- To: <ceo@alierra.com>
- Cc: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <84311846-66A8-11D9-AE52-000A95E54002@w3.org>
Hello Mark, On Jan 14, 2005, at 23:56, <ceo@alierra.com> wrote: > Validator has a very good concept behind it. But the way it is > programmed right now creates chaos on inexperienced web users. For > some unknown reason many lay users consider Validator to be their GOD > and they believe that the results are 100% true. For some people indeed, this is true. For a lot of technologies, the validator can sometimes be the only "face" users ever see, and they do not know that there are actually normative specifications behind, that the validator merely tries to follow as well as possible. > Frankly speaking, before the Validator release its developers should > have explained that their program is being developed and the reports > may not be considered as a practical guide to action. What makes you think this is not the case? The validator has a public database of bugs, its homepage mentions constant bug-fixes in every release, validation results note that some technologies' support is incomplete, the FAQ[1] suggests that validation results should be taken with a grain of salt, etc. [1] http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#validandquality People sometimes make self-righteous comments without double-checking all their facts. I think your message just proved that this can happen to anyone, even with the best intentions :)... How would you suggest we could improve our message that "validation is good, but it is neither flawless nor an ultimate goal"? Thank you. -- olivier
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2005 03:50:09 UTC