W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2002

Re: persistent QA problems with the W3C Validator

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:47:52 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Message-ID: <r01050300-1015-9FD3C95C79F311D68AC500039300CF5C@[]>

Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote:

>and, finally, i did not simply "shout", to use your term -- i offered
>concrete proposals, with concrete solutions, coupled with what could be
>construed as "inflammatory rhetoric", but there are no other words to
>describe the failure of the validator to comply with WCAG other than
>"inexcusable" and "unconscionable" -- all of the other words that come
>to mind are not quite "fit to print";
>if you don't like the wrapper, throw it away, but don't discard the
>concrete suggestions, nor discount the frustration and disillusionment
>of the disabled computer user...

Not to worry Gregory, I did not find you letter to be particuarly
inflammatory. You are right on the mark that these issues exist and that
they should have been dealt with long ago. I understand the frustration of
trying to bring about changes that seem critically important when no one
appears to be listening or, perhaps worse yet, listening but not doing
anything about it.

I think perhaps Thanasis is a bit sore due to some messages on this list a
while back that really were the email equivalent of a real world argument
consisting mostly of shouting and insults. At least I know they left /me/
with little incentive for being gracious about such things in the future.

But as I wrote above, your message simply didn't fall into that category.
You were, as always, more then within the bounds of normal courtesy and I
certainly consider it valuable feedback.

Editor's note: in the last update,   we noted that Larry Wall would "vomment"
on existing RFCs. Some took that to be a cross between "vomit" and "comment."
We are unsure of whether it was a subconscious slip or a typographical error.
We are also unsure of whether or not to regret the error.      -- use.perl.org
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 04:50:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:28 UTC