W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2004

Re: MarkUp Validator's new clothes

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:52:36 +0200
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <b02010202-1033-F7D1882493EE11D88B730030657B83E8@[]>

Hash: SHA1

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Terje Bless wrote:
>>The problem here lies in defining "messages where it makes sense". If
>>you have an idea of how to do that I'd love to hear it. The best I can
>>come up with is deciding on a case-by-case basis; and that hardly
>Does it need to "scale"?

Yes. The proposed solution must scale to match the scope of the problem.

In this case, the pertinent consideration is "It works for one error message,
and for two, and for five, but for all 300 of them?" We can look at a specific
error message and decide whether open elements should be displayed for that
particular message, but the resources are not available to perform this
evaluation for every error message individually. i.e. it does not scale.

The three ways out are 1) maintain the status quo, 2) find a solution that
scales better -- some broader rules of categorization perhaps -- and 3) add it
as pertinent messages are found.

I do not believe option #3 is a good solution as it is too arbitrary -- and
special cases have a cost! -- and provides too little value compared to the
necessary effort.

Hence the wish for a more "scaleable" solution. :-)

- -- 
Ladies and gentlemen, you must resist those all-too-human feelings and decide
this case on the evidence.    And the evidence plainly shows that Mr. Landa's
injuries,   disfiguring as they are,  are nowhere near as important to a free
society as the fundamental right to make smart-ass remarks.   -- Katie @ AtAT

Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 19:52:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:40 UTC