W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2016

Re: HTTPS valid in Chrome, but not via w3c validator

From: Anna Marie Golden <amgolden@uw.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:55:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CALsf5z-oTOyM-8Xus+gvv5u4h2hwb69diXcQSeRpfFqJuwTzJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonny Grant <jg@jguk.org>, "Michael [tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
I agree!!  It is very much "in the eye of the beholder."  I'm not a fan of
the NU and very much prefer the w3 validator.  I much prefer the way the
results are displayed in the w3 validator.  The NU validator displays them
in a manner that is too busy with all of the different formatting for the
various parts of an error message.  I also like that the w3 validator gives
you a summary of how many errors/ warnings were found at the top of the
displayed results.

--Anna Marie

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Philip Taylor <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

> Jonny Grant wrote:
> It seems like the NU validator is better, so maybe this can just be the
> default?
> "Better" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and as one who
> invariably authors in HTML 4.01 Strict unless I /need/ HTML 5 features, I
> for one would find it a complete disaster if the validator were to switch
> to the NU variant for pre-HTML 5 validation.
> --
> Philip Taylor


*Anna Marie Golden, MHCID*

*​Master of Human-Computer Interaction + Design, Class of 2014​*

*IT Accessibility Specialist*

*Accessible Technology Services, UW-IT(206) 221-4164*

*Mailing Address:Box 354842University of Washington*

*Seattle, WA 98195-4842*

*Street Address:*

*4545 Building*

*4545 - 15th Avenue NE, Suite 100*
*Seattle, Washington 98105*

(image/jpeg attachment: Signature.jpg)

Received on Thursday, 14 July 2016 20:09:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:55 UTC