Re: Todo list point 1 fixed

I have a solution relating to number 16:
make e.g. http://validator.w3.org/check/referer;imgonly return only an image
showing the validation status of the referring page

This is a great concept, but in addition to an image-only page, it would be
very helpful to have a marketing-type page. Something that explains why this
seal of conformance is important, and what the benefits of each distinct
category are (e.g. for HTML vs. XHTML, and for Strict vs. Transitional).

I'm about to launch a partial redesign of a commercial site that eschews all
table-based layout, uses CSS-2, conforms to XHTML Transitional, uses the
media type style sheet reference for a different printed layout, and a whole
bunch of other neat things.

And I'm including a W3 XHTML logo with a link to the referrer validator.
What comes back when the page validates or breaks is very useful for me as
the designer/content person, but not all that useful or pretty for the
visitors to our site. You can see the prototype at
http://www.cadenceweb.com/templates/blackMagazine.html

If this "marketing" page could explain in laymens terms why a particular
validation level is good, and why the next level would be better (i.e.
ditching frames, etc.), it would help explain the importance of modern
coding to the site visitors. What they get now tells them it validates, but
leaves them on their own to figure out why.

Also, when the page doesn't validate, it would be helpful to have the page
display a warning with a suggestion to e-mail the webmaster of the offending
site so that the page could be fixed. This may mean adding another field to
the query, so that a page author could pass an e-mail address to be
displayed.

Oh, and nice touch making sure that the validation logo uses one of the IAB
banner sizes!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:02 AM
Subject: Todo list point 1 fixed


> Priority 1 on the todo list (http://validator.w3.org/todo.html):
>
> 1. bug fix: this doc is invalid, but not reported as such
...
> Any suggestions for improvements are welcome.

Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 00:42:28 UTC