validator warning purposes

Larger question is the intended use of the validator service.

I don't think any web validation service could ever be targeted so  
closely as to avoid advanced users deciding they've outgrown the need  
to take advice from the validator.  But without robust explanations,  
how will novice users know where to look to outgrow the service  

Is the service intended as recreation to attain perfect code standing,  
or an assistance tool to help new users reach proficiency?

On May 29, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Jasper Magick wrote:

> "No character encoding information was found within the document,  
> either in an HTML meta element or an XML declaration. It is often  
> recommended to declare the character encoding in the document  
> itself, especially if there is a chance that the document will be  
> read from or saved to disk, CD, etc."
> This is stupid.  I know what I'm doing, I put the character encoding  
> info at the server level so I don't have to put it in the document.   
> It was fine for a long time, and now I get a stupid warning about  
> it?  I'm one of those anal people that like their validation to be  
> perfect, including no warnings!  I've worked hard to make sure every  
> site I make passes 100% in Strict validation, and now you people add  
> this new warning?  I refuse to add encoding info to the document  
> itself, I think it looks ugly in the page source, and it just adds  
> to the other bytes the document has.  I would like this warning to  
> be removed in an update to the validator.  For a while now, the  
> validator has moved more toward the thinking every web arthur is an  
> idiot, and this new warning just confirms that.  I have no intention  
> of putting my site on a CD, but if I did, I'm smart enough to add  
> encoding info at the document level;  I don't need to be told this  
> in a warning!

Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 15:21:33 UTC