W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2019

Nu Html Checker

From: Randy <business@pixyland.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 23:47:12 -0500
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <3eb1590d-4848-d564-6a07-43e525504af4@pixyland.org>
First of all, Thank you!!!  I very much appreciate Nu Html Checker. Back 
in 2001 I wrote a huge website that has become somewhat famous called 
"Peter Pan's Home Page" (Won a webby that year too!). Over the years 
I've patched and added, slowly migrated into CSS, and now HTML 5. But 
that web site is huge and requires a TON of work! I probably won't even 
get to the main page until last!

But...as I finish working on pages (or think I've finished), it is VERY 
helpful to have something to find the many dumb errors I leave behind.

My complaint though is that your validator shows things as "errors" 
which really should be in a "warning" category. If something has worked 
since 2001, and still works, it probably always will, and should not be 
considered an "error", because it doesn't cause any browser to actually 
trip. Examples include "space" characters in image src names. I have 
1000 wedding pictures sent by friends organized into pages and slide 
shows, which unfortunately have spaces in their names. I'd fix them if 
it mattered, but it never has. Also, attributes that have been replaced 
by CSS are NOT errors. The CSS will always override the attributes, and 
SOME of us would like to still be compatible with even the oldest 
browsers. Especially if you see a class or ID associated with a tag, it 
is likely "styled" properly ALONG with the legacy attributes. Also, 
forgetting "alt" tags is definitely less than top notch work, but its 
not an error. And if it is an empty, then an empty alt="" should not 
clear the error.

Anyway, things like this would be greatly improved if you ascribed a 
number representing severity. Lower numbers being unimportant warnings 
and higher ones for critical errors that WILL likely cause browsers to 
trip. Then, if you  add a setting on the site that allows the user to 
choose a minimum level of severity before items are flagged, it would 
make it a lot easier to prioritize work to be done. I know this may 
cause some people to just ignore the lower priority warnings. But I'd 
suggest that it is very helpful, especially when upgrading or 
troubleshooting pages, to quickly separate the more glaring errors.

Thanks for consideration, and thanks again for a great tool!


-- 
*Randy Constan*
Received on Monday, 28 January 2019 07:27:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:00:08 UTC