Re: [ANN] 0.6.2 Beta #1 of the W3C Markup Validator

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Terje Bless wrote:
> >>>I think the fallback feature may come handy for many people who
> >>>produce/have sites without a DOCTYPE/charset declared. However, it's
> >>>possible that they don't even bother to fix that when we offer
> >>>fallback, "because it works as is"... Well, should we care? :-|
> >>
> >>You don't convince people to care by stronger emphasis. Empasis is meant
> >>to help people to understand, not to shout at them if they don't want to
> >>listen.
> >
> >Ah, I suspect that's what Nicolas meant; the error message might be confused
> >with an informational message (i.e. a message that may safely be ignored) and
> >stronger emphasis might make it clearer that the message is important.
> You think users might miss
>   ---> THIS PAGE IS **NOT** VALID <---
> ?

I meant that if an otherwise valid page only lacks a DOCTYPE
declaration, it will be valid after validation, so we need to make clear
that it would not be valid without fallback to using a DOCTYPE
I haven't looked at the code though, so am not sure about this.
What I want to say is that the validator must still say a page is
invalid if "only" the DOCTYPE declaration is missing (but inserted
on-the-fly by the validator).


PS: No need to send me Cc's, I've been subscribed for some months... :-)

Received on Saturday, 24 May 2003 14:10:15 UTC