Re: Todo list

Frank Ellermann <Frank.Ellermann@t-online.de> wrote:

>Terje Bless wrote:
>
>[visible with any browser - NOT]

If the content fails to make it through in any browser then _please_ tell
me about it! It is expected that some things will fail to work 100% in
(mainly) older browsers, but a significant design goal is that the main
content should come through no matter what.


>>The links will probably not work in Netscape 4.x either
>
>We totally agree that Netscape 4.x is as important as HTML 3.0, so don't
>worry about it.  But Netscape 3 is a simple and robust browser, not much
>bigger than Lynx & Co. on my "warped" system.

Is there a problem viewing the site in Netscape 3.x then?

Specifics, man. Specifics! :-)


As concerns the <a name=""> issue, I may have to renege on that. Since we
do in fact use a _lot_ of these still, it would be inconsistent to refuse
them in some places. I'm still thinking about what policy to take in
general on this.

But, as I've already mentioned, if there is somewhere it is particularly
important that we use <a name=""> in addition to an "id" attribute to
enable basic functionality, then please do let me know!


>>It is unfortunate that this results in broken internal links for you of
>>course, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
>
>The line is "add comma tablin to get linearized tables", and it (still
>?) works.

This either does not follow from the previous discussion or I am failing to
understand it. Do you want us to add a way to linearize tables in Validator
output?

We added the W3C "comma-tools" -- among them the .tablin tool -- to the
site in the last update, but unfortunately they do not work well with CGI
applications. I've looked at adding "comma-tool" links in the "jump to"
navigation bar in result pages; which ought to provide an equivalent
functionality (even if with a different interface).

See, e.g., <http://validator.w3.org:8001/check?uri=www.vir.si;verbose=1>.


>It's IMHO inconsistent to validate something like Wilbur or XTHML
>transitional, and then present the results in a form not working
>with old browsers.

I disagree. We also Validate SVG and spec-prod (the DTD used to generate
some W3C Technical Reports and some RFCs) which certainly would not be
suitable for viewing in a run-of-the-mill browser.


>This is IMHO deliberately breaking old software for no visible (or
>audible etc.) advantage at all.  It's possible to create valid documents
>visible with more browsers (adding ",tablin" in fact _all_ browsers), so
>why not do it ?  If WDG and Amazon can do it, why should W3C fail ?

I hesitate to repeat myself, but... I need specifics!

You appear to be trying to convince me of something, but I'm not sure what
it is or even that I disagreed to begin with. :-)


>If it's possible with weird colors, then simple W3C validation results
>should work with (almost) all browsers.

Yes, I'm very much in agreement in general. We may disagree on some of the
specifics (cf. the <a name=""> issue), but I think we're very much in
agreement on the goal.


>An option to sort errors by class instead of line numbers could be handy
>for intentional errors (?), but probably I can also do this on my side
>using your output=xml option.

You would first need to actually classify the messages, and I'm afraid that
would be an herculean task. And that's not even taking into account the
amount of work involved in actually implementing it. It's a good idea, but
I'm afraid it's too labour-intensive to stand much chance of getting
implemented in any reasonable timeframe.


-- 
"Allright... Calm down! Relax! Start breathin´..."         -- Dr. D.R.E.

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 22:23:24 UTC