- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:17:22 +0100
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- CC: "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Jens O. Meiert wrote: >> The message seems well-intentioned but I could see it come off a >> little patronizing, > That would make a welcome change from the default state of checker > messages (namely, impenetrable), but I don't think so. I agree about the advantages of making the analysis less impenetrable, but I would strongly argue against any suggestion that the validator should appear to patronise. > (Ideally, the checker would merely reflect test-based monitoring for > the actual specs here.) Not really clear what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that, as a background task, the validator should continually probe a pool of the major browsers to identify parts of the specification that are not almost universally supported, and then report the statistics whenever an error relating to such a part of the specification is generated ? If so, I cannot see the benefit : a separate tool that compares the specification with browserland, and which maintains a statistics page on the web, would potentially be useful, but I do not see this as a task for the validator, nor do I see the benefit of reporting the statistics for only the parts of the document that are already in error : it is the parts that are /not/ in error for which the statistics would be more useful, is it not ? Philip Taylor
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 09:17:56 UTC