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

Re: [VE][108] Error Message Feedback

From: Tim Jackson <lists@timj.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:24:24 +0100
To: Timothy Keith <timothykeith@comcast.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <E1Bm8qH-0000d9-Cs@virt1.clust1.firecluster.net>

Hi Timothy, on Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:10:50 -0400 you wrote:

> After trying to validate my webpage I noticed several popular tags where
> not supported by your markup validation service. 

You're wrong. The validator supports whatever document type you declare
your document as. If the validator complained, then it means you either:

- used an incorrect document type for the document you wanted to create


- used incorrect elements/attributes/whatever for the document type which 
  you intended your document to be.

Be aware that there are quite a number of HTML document types, and not all
of them include frameset support (which you appear to be trying to use).
Frames are ugly, but if you must use them then you need to use a document
type which includes definitions for frame-related elements.

Also be aware that the validator has no concept of what is "supported" by
browsers. Typically, it's used to verify compliance with *standards* (that
is, against document types provided by W3C), and this doesn't always
correlate with browser support. This is not a fault with the validator.

> I request a confermation email to make sure this email was read. 

You've just posted to a public mailing list, so sure, it was read ;) It
will also be publically archived and accessible for the world to see. But
it's worth noting that your e-mail comes across in a rather aggressive
manner and somewhat like you making demands, which reflects badly on you
given that:

a) I presume that you're not paying for this service and that the W3C has
   no *obligation* to you, and

b) you're in the wrong, and are being rather rude by storming in and
   asserting that someone's good work is faulty, when in actual fact it's
   your understanding which is lacking, not the validator's capabilities.

You might like to bear that in mind next time.

By the way, I'm nothing to do with W3C or the validator, just another

Received on Sunday, 18 July 2004 06:24:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:43 UTC