- From: Rui del-Negro <w3validator@dvd-hq.info>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:51:52 +0100
- To: www-validator@w3.org
- Cc: ot@w3.org
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:23:57 +0100, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote: > > Well, at least as far as I can tell there is no way to "inject" a link, > just some text, and yes, that text can be as stupid as humanity allows > it, that is, infinitely. > > I'm not sure what to do with your "bug" report here. It feels as though > its use will be mostly to give bad ideas to idiots, and as far as > "fixing" the validator is concerned, I'm not sure what to do. Maybe we > could limit the length of the string that is displayed... > > Any idea from everyone on the list? I don't think that the kind of people likely to recognise "W3C" as a "source of authority" will fall for this kind of trick. Having said that, maybe the header that says: This page is not valid [X]. Could say: This page does not validate (using doctype "[X]"). Or something along those lines. In other words, avoid making the doctype appear as part of the sentence. RMN ~~~
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:52:29 UTC