- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:43:34 -0400
- To: Paul Arzul <paul.arzul@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-validator-css@w3.org, "R.W. Crowl" <silvermaplesoft@earthlink.net>
On 12-Sep-08, at 6:30 AM, Paul Arzul wrote: > should we be ignoring obvious typographical errors > ("ody" was surely meant to be "body")? isn't this what warnings are > for? further, if the css was submitted/found via (x)html, then the > validator *knows* that this is an error as it is aware of the context. I don't think there is any reasonable way to "ignore" typos. A checking tool should not second-guess what the author did and omit to output some warnings or errors because "maybe that was on purpose". However, the only thing that stops a checker like the validator to improve from "Property colour doesn't exist" to "Property colour doesn't exist. Did you mean “color”?" is a good patch. > a lookup table of valid css properties or (x)html elements > cross-referenced via the edit distance[1,2] algorithm would be rather > helpful, imho. Agreed. Now, honestly, as much as I'd like to I can't go to any of our staff and suggest that they could implement this. I won't go into details, but we're already struggling to push a number of crucial patches on CSS grammar, CSS3 updates, etc. out of the door. The only way a feature such as the distance-check could be developed soon is through community patches. Let me extend, again, an invitation to java hackers: * the code is here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/css-validator/ * we have a staging server to test development and patches * we'll happily give commit rights to developers ready to help, hack, improve In the meantime, I'll encourage you to enter the suggestion in bugzilla: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=CSSValidator Thanks, olivier -- olivier Thereaux - W3C - http://www.w3.org/People/olivier W3C Open Source Software : http://www.w3.org/Status
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 13:44:10 UTC