- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:20:59 +0900
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Hi David, sorry for the late reply on this. On Feb 8, 2007, at 01:38 , David Dorward wrote: > < Dorward> Could stick a button at the top of the "Invalid" result > page. "Attempt to fix errors automatically". Run it > through tidy, input the result into the validator, > revalidate that (we'd need to be able to show source on the > Valid page otherwise the exercise would be pointless) and > include a notice at the top of both the valid and invalid > results pages along the lines of "The code being validated > was processed by <a>Tidy</a>, a software project maintained > by <a>Foo</a> and not under the control of the W3C" > > This approach probably wouldn't be compatible with file upload or > direct input validation attempts. Possibly this could be worked around > using CGI::Session? As you mention this approach would make it difficult to use with file upload and direct input, and would make the option rather hidden: I do not have any stats on how many people click on the "validate css" and "check links" from the (valid) results page, but I suspect very few. Likewise, I suspect that results pages for invalid documents are already rather crowded and a link, however useful to tidy, might be a little lost there. I'm currently thinking that the tidy option should be available: - from the home page - off by default - switched off for valid documents (the latter is arguable) And when one uses the feature, there should be a strong warning that the feature is using third party software and provided without guarantee. The current development version tries to follow this path: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/ HEAD/dev/tests/error_pls_warning.html;st Any thought? (and what to do about the <meta name="generator" ... ?) -- olivier
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 07:21:27 UTC