W3C验证器更新 [英] W3C Validator Update

问题描述

现在有一个新的W3C标记验证服务测试版现已发布在

< URL：http：//validator.w3.org：8001 />


可能最重要的变化是详细输出，包括尝试解释验证器错误的
。其他更改包括改进显示错误消息的

以及解析模式的选择。

目前 - 但可能不会很长时间 - 它包括一个

有趣默认设置！


一些变化一直是争论的主题。我们需要

来扩大包含用户的范围：请告诉我们您喜欢的内容或

不喜欢新服务！快速反馈可能会抓住Terje而

他仍在攻击此版本:-)


一如既往，欢迎提出问题和错误报告，但请检查

首先是否已经知道。


-

Nick Kew


迫切需要付费工作 - 请参阅 http：// www。 webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

There''s a new beta of the W3C Markup Validation Service now live at
<URL:http://validator.w3.org:8001/>

Probably the most important change is verbose output, including attempts
to explain the validator errors. Other changes include improved
display of error messages, and a choice of parse modes.
Currently - but probably not for long - it includes an
"interesting" default setting!

Some of the changes have been the subject of much debate. We need
to widen that to include users: please tell us what you like or
dislike in the new service! Quick feedback may catch Terje while
he''s still hacking this release:-)

As always, problem and bug reports are welcome, but please check
first whether they''re already known.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

推荐答案

Jim Ley写道：

Jim Ley wrote:

2003年8月28日星期四19:11:44 +0000（UTC），Jukka K. Korpela
< jk ****** @ cs.tut.fi>写道：

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:11:44 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

ni ** @ fenris.webthing.com（Nick Kew）写道：

ni**@fenris.webthing.com (Nick Kew) wrote:

首先 - 干得好，谢谢你们所有人都付出了这些努力。


这个测试版本已被默认为扩展模式，因为这是一个监督。显然是错的，你觉得挑剔的模式不应该存在吗？


挑剔模式肯定有好处。在验证器的命名下，这是否应该仍然下降到
是一个不同的问题。我当然不会觉得有资格回答这个问题。


当然，SGML验证器，CSS验证器也没用吗？如果你不喜欢验证器的非技术性使用，你有什么建议
这样的QA工具？


质量协助。 QA协助。它的工具是关于提高

标记的质量，所以为什么不关注质量方面。企业往往喜欢

等字样的质量。

是的，声称有效文件无效的测试版是错误的，是的，测试版错误地默认为挑剔模式 - 我想每个人都承认这一点。你能在报告的测试版中看到其他什么问题吗？

First of all - well done and thanks for the efforts all of you have put into
this.

This beta release has been defaulted to an extended mode as an
oversight, that''s clearly wrong, do you feel a fussy mode should not
exist?
There''s certainly benefit in a fussy mode. Whether that should still fall
under the naming of "validator" is a different question. I certainly don''t
feel qualified to answer that question.

An SGML validator certainly, is the CSS validator also useless? If
you don''t like the non-technical use of validator, what do you propose
such a QA tool be called?
Quality Assist. QA Assist. Its tools about improving the Quality of the
markup, so why not focus on the Quality aspect. Businesses tend to like
words like Quality.
Yes the beta is wrong to claim valid document invalid, yes the beta is
wrong to default to fussy mode - I think everyone has acknowledged
that. Do you see anything else wrong in the beta you could report?

没错，但让我感到困惑：

< http： //validator.w3.org:8001/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isolani.co.uk%2Fblog%2F& verbose = 1& fussy = 1>

（验证我的博客页面）


我对未转义的有点惊讶。 &安培;在主要文本中通过验证没有注意到 - > b $ b但我很高兴新挑剔的检查员把它拿起来

（文本中多次出现Marks& Spencer） 。可能更多的是我对验证器检查的内容缺乏了解而不是

工具本身 - 但它足以说服我挑剔的好处。 />
格子。

干得好！

-

Iso。

常见问题解答：< a rel =nofollowhref =http://html-faq.comtarget =_ blank> http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/

推荐主机： http://www.affordablehost.com/

网络标准： http://www.webstandards.org/

Nothing wrong, but confused me a bit:
<http://validator.w3.org:8001/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isolani.co.uk%2Fblog%2F &verbose=1&fussy=1>
(Validating my blog page)

I''m a little surprised that the "unescaped" & in the main text went
unnoticed by validation - but I''m glad the new fussy checker picked it up
(Multiple occurrances of Marks & Spencer within the text). It is probably
more my lack of understanding of what a validator checks rather than the
tool itself - but its good enough to convince me of the benefits of a fussy
checker.
Good work!
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

ji * @ jibbering.com （Jim Ley）写道：

ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

是的，声称有效的文件inva是错误的盖子，是的，测试版是错误的默认模式 - 我想每个人都承认
。


那么为什么还没有修好？他们如何设法制作这样的基本错误？如果你问我，这只是

方法的高潮，它创造了挑剔模式。首先。

您是否看到可以报告的测试版中有任何其他错误？

Yes the beta is wrong to claim valid document invalid, yes the beta is
wrong to default to fussy mode - I think everyone has acknowledged
that.
So why hasn''t it been fixed? And how _did_ they manage to make such
elementary errors? If you ask me, it was just the culmination of the
approach that created "fussy mode" in the first place.
Do you see anything else wrong in the beta you could report?

我应该报告其他事情而不是事实所有宣布的新

功能都是废话？


多年前我们需要一个好的标签汤检查器。把一个

验证器变成一个非常单面的标签汤检查器可以帮助没人。


-

Yucca， http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

有关网页制作的网页： http：// www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Should I report something else than the fact that all the announced new
features are nonsense?

We would have needed a good tag soup checker years ago. Turning a
validator to a very one-sided tag soup checker helps nobody.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

2003年8月28日星期四20:12:49 +0000 （UTC），Jukka K. Korpela

< jk ****** @ cs.tut.fi>写道：

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:12:49 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

ji*@jibbering.com（Jim Ley）写道：

ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

是的，声称有效的文件无效，是的测试版默认为挑剔模式是错误的 - 我想每个人都承认
那个。
那么为什么还没有修复？

Yes the beta is wrong to claim valid document invalid, yes the beta is
wrong to default to fussy mode - I think everyone has acknowledged
that.
So why hasn''t it been fixed?

嗯，质量保证流程向我建议应该首先测试修复，

然后再推出到生产机器上，beta验证器

确实在和真正的验证器一样的机器，所以黑客和补丁

你可能不是特别明智吗？

他们如何设法做出这样的事情？基本错误？


基本错误是什么，默认为错误的模式，那是非常好的/ b $ b简单的确定吗？消息的文字说有效 - 好吧一个

这个词很容易被忽视，当你知道

你实际上是什么意思时，我们至少可以理解它们。我的创作过程中存在错误的问题

，这就是为什么我们有测试版等。

Hmm, QA processes suggest to me that fixes should be tested first,
before being rolled out onto production machines, the beta validator
does run on the same machine as the real validator, so hack and patch
as you go probably isn''t particularly wise is it?
And how _did_ they manage to make such
elementary errors?
Elementary errors as what, defaulting to a wrong mode, that''s pretty
simple to do surely? The text of the message saying valid - well one
word can easily be overlooked, it is mostly aesthetic when you know
what you actually mean, I can at least understand both bugs creeping
in with my authoring processes, which is why we have betas etc.

你看到别的什么错吗你可以在测试版中报告吗？

Do you see anything else wrong in the beta you could report?

我应该报告一些事情，而不是所有宣布的新功能都是废话吗？

Should I report something else than the fact that all the announced new
features are nonsense?

当然不是，你很有必要在这里报告问题。我问你有没有看到任何其他问题。

几年前我们需要一个好的标签汤检查器。将
验证器转换为非常单侧的标签汤检查器可以帮助任何人。

Of course not, you very right to report the problems here. I was
asking if you had seen any other issues.
We would have needed a good tag soup checker years ago. Turning a
validator to a very one-sided tag soup checker helps nobody.

单边是什么意思？ ？


吉姆。

-

comp.lang.javascript常见问题 - http://jibbering.com/faq/

What do you mean by "one sided" ?

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

这篇关于W3C验证器更新的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！