Re: Comments on New Validation Service

>From: Joseph Reagle <>

Better give KMail a twap upside the head? Why is it including a Reply-To
that's identical to your From field?

Joseph Reagle <> wrote:

>Great to see the new work, but it isn't that pretty in all browsers...
>[16:03:16] <reagleMIT>

Which channel was this in, BTW?

>the css looks kind of ugly

I hope that was in re the below and not in general? :-)

>the fonts look way to squeezed together on konqueror, and illegible
>overlap in opera 6.03

Konq seems to be choosing a squeezed font for some reason. I'll look into
it and see if there is anything we can do to make it choose a better font.
In general though, we chosen some specific fonts to make MSIE:win do a
better job -- i.e. set font-family to semi-decent `doze fonts -- leaving
the generic "sans-serif" for other platforms. I don't know why Konq isn't
using it's default sens-serif font.

My Opera 6.02 OTOH seems to show it just fine. Can you be more specific?

>also, the limitations bit and "document located at" is kind of scary and
>confusing to start iwth.

Heh! I tried leaving out the "limitations" bit and got jumped on;
"Damned if you do..." etc. :-)

The "document located at" bit OTOH was intended to be /less/ scary then
that table of technical gibberish that was there before. The URI is less
visible of course, but that's under the assumption that a) you know what
page you just tried to validate, and b) the URI isn't all that interesting,
it's the Valid vs. Invalid that's important.

Suggestions for how to make it less scary?

"Temper Temper! Mr. Dre? Mr. NWA? Mr. AK, comin´
 straight outta Compton and y'all better make way?"            -- eminem

Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 17:35:29 UTC