- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:36:36 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1500 ------- Comment #16 from w3-2006@ryandesign.com 2007-05-02 10:36 ------- Oliver, I don't see why you've now changed your mind on this. My comment #8 from last year still applies, and all I can do is paraphrase it again. Heck, the original problem description from almost 2 years ago seems to still describe it pretty well too: The validator declares documents as valid though they violate the XHTML 1.0 spec, appendix C, section 3. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines I'm not implying any strength of the prose of the spec, and I don't care whether that section is "normative" or "informative" or any other big word; it describes a behavior that web site authors and therefore browsers should follow, and popular browsers (Safari, Firefox) do in fact implement the described behavior. When web site authors do not follow the guidelines of that section of the spec, their web sites break under those browsers. When bug reports are filed on this with the web site authors, and the particular browser they're using (Internet Explorer, I think) does not exhibit this problem, and the web site author does one last check and validates the document using the w3 validator, they find it to be valid and in turn reject the bug report, saying the browser must be at fault. But it is not. It is behaving in accordance with the aforementioned spec. I did not spend hours researching this problem just so you could decide 9 months later that it's not a problem after all. It is. It really is. Please reopen the bug and amend the validator. It takes an effort to report bugs to web site authors (or anyone else). When those bug reports are rejected, some reporters may give up rather than fight them on it. The end result is that fewer bugs in web sites are fixed, and users of standards-compliant browsers are disadvantaged. That is surely not the end result we're all looking for.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:36:44 UTC