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)