- From: Frankie <frankieh@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:10:22 +0800
- To: "W3C" <www-validator@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: www-validator-request@w3.org >[mailto:www-validator-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Terje Bless >Sent: Sunday, 31 August 2003 2:36 AM >To: W3C Validator >Subject: Help Wanted: Test Cases for "Fussy" Mode > > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >While feedback on the «Fussy» parse mode has been generally >positive — with a >few notable exceptions :-) — it seems clear that it is currently >excessively, >uhm, «Fussy». > >To help us better fine-tune this, I would ask that anyone with a >particularly >good example of cases where «Fussy» mode is excessively fussy — >e.g. produces >a gazillion errors instead of one or two, or complains of things >that are not >really problems under any circumstances — let us know. Please, if >possible, >reduce your examples to a minimal test case (it reduces the time >we have to >spend on doing it) and indicate whether we may include your example in our >internal test suite. > >The «canonical» example right now, of beeing excessively fussy, is a long >table without a <tbody> element (which gets an error for every >single <tr>). > >Also welcome would be examples of where «Fussy» mode actually >does its job; >namely catches errors that would normally have been overlooked. > >- -- >"Hath no man's dagger here a point for me?" - Leonato, Governor >of Messina. > See Project Gutenberg ><URL:http://promo.net/pg/> for more. > FRANKI: How about just making it a "helpful suggestions" checkbox. Since thats to the point, newbie friendly, and positive in feeling. rgds Franki
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2003 22:12:25 UTC