This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The description near the top of http://validator.w3.org/ says: "The W3C Markup Validation Service is a free service that checks Web documents in formats like HTML and XHTML for conformance to W3C Recommendations and other standards." That's incorrect, because the service is not an all-round conformance checker but an SGML (not even XML) validator. Suggested replacement: "The W3C Markup Validation Service is a free service that checks Web documents in formats like HTML and XHTML for SGML validity according to the specified DTD. It does not check conformance criteria that is not expressed in the DTD."
(In reply to comment #0) > That's incorrect, because the service is not an all-round conformance checker That's a good point. > but an SGML (not even XML) validator. I don't completely agree, but that's not the point here. > Suggested replacement: > "The W3C Markup Validation Service is a free service that checks Web documents > in formats like HTML and XHTML for SGML validity according to the specified DTD. > It does not check conformance criteria that is not expressed in the DTD." I do not think this is acceptable as a "tagline" for the service. Think of this as the first thing people are likely to read. The current text is already full of acronyms, but ones that most people coming to validate will know. I do not think however, that "SGML validity according to the specified DTD" is appropriate at this location. I would much rather simplify, shorten the text and have it link to the FAQ than slap in concepts that even docs/sgml.html do not start to explain.
Considering comment #0 and comment #1, I propose the following to satisfy both correctness and simplicity. "This is a free service that checks certain aspects of standards conformance in Web documents." Follow with a "more info..." link. Poof, we're done, all confusion evaporates, and the misinformed messages stop coming to the mailing list. Right?
Since people are likely to read the tagline but not much else, making the point that the validator does not check everything is important. Third-party hype, the unconditional praise of valid documents and the current tagline make people believe that everything is ok if their document validates. Since the usual explanation given to people who have thought that the validator does more than it actually does is that the validator is a DTD validator--nothing more nothing less, I think it would be fair to point out conspicuously that it is a DTD validator. Hence: "The W3C Markup Validation Service is a free service that checks Web documents in formats like HTML and XHTML for validity according to the specified DTD."
Etan, Henri, thanks for your suggestions. Based on them, here is something I suggest: [[ This is a free service that helps check the validity of Web documents in HTML, XHTML and other formats. (_More info_). ]] (_More info_) could link to the "About" page, which would be amended to contain a better intro to the concepts involved, as well as links to FAQ items on which document types are supported, and a more detailed explanation on why validation is not conformance (as an addition to the validation != quality entry) Does that seem acceptable to you?
The wording suggested in comment #4 is not acceptable to me, but has some strong points. Using the word "this" instead of the phrase "W3C Markup Validation Service" is positive, since the word "this" is shorter and, given the context of the tagline, just as clear. Using the qualification "helps check" is decent in that it doesn't claim to do everything. But in the comment #4 wording, which explicitly says "validity", the qualification is almost unnecessary (excepting the few hiccups over differences between SGML and XML). Worse, the qualification is far too easy to miss. We want people to notice the words of caution as much as they notice the rest. Specifying the formats is clutter. The phrase "Web documents" is good enough by itself. HTML documents are obviously included and so should not be specified. If anybody thinks that PDF documents or Microsoft Word documents or whatever odd others are Web documents in the sense intended, that person will soon enough discover otherwise. The comment #4 wording, despite giving concrete examples of formats ("HTML, XHTML"), ends with "and other formats", undoing the preceding narrowing of scope. I want to omit the words "valid" and "validity". In the English language, both terms have common meanings that are not the same as the meaning of the jargon. Using either word will cause misunderstanding. My latest suggestion follows. "This is a free service that helps check standards conformance in Web documents. This service does not check for full conformance."
(In reply to comment #5) Etan, I agree with a lot of points in your review of my proposed wording. Before we go any further, however, let me quickly explain my rationale for including the parts that you do not find acceptable. > Using the qualification "helps check" is decent in that it doesn't claim to do > everything. But in the comment #4 wording, which explicitly says "validity", the > qualification is almost unnecessary (excepting the few hiccups over differences > between SGML and XML). Worse, the qualification is far too easy to miss. We want > people to notice the words of caution as much as they notice the rest. I see your point. I would have liked the tagline to use "validity" rather than "conformance", since it is validity we're checking here, but given that it's a validator, and given the rest of the sentence (e.g help check), perhaps this is not necessary. > Specifying the formats is clutter. Possibly. The problem here is that the validator, however named "markup validator" and validating everything from HTML to SMIL, MathML, and basically every language out there based on a DTD, it is still refered and thought of as the "HTML validator", and that's its main usage. I think it is crucial to have at least "HTML" in the tagline, or that term won't be present at all on the validator's homepage, which I don't consider acceptable in a user point of view.
> [[ > This is a free service that helps check the validity of Web documents in HTML, XHTML and other > formats. (_More info_). > ]] Looks good to me, except I'd like to qualify "validity" as "DTD validity". That way it does not look like a generic English word and those who don't know what a DTD is have more incentive to follow the "more info" link and find out. > "This is a free service that helps check standards conformance in Web documents. > This service does not check for full conformance." I don't like the idea of substituting "validity" with "conformance" at all, because the validator is not a conformance checker.
removing blocker or 0.7.0 metabug, as we decide to give this more thought, and won't resolve before release of 0.7.0.
The home page of the dev version of the markup validator now has a description inspired from the discussion on this bug. While it is probably not perfect yet, I am considering it satisfactory, and therefore closing the bug. See: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ Thanks to all for the contributions and suggestions.
The revised wording (âThis validator checks the Markup Validity of Web documents in HTML, XHTML, SMIL, MathML, etc.â?, from v0.8.0-dev) is acceptable to me. I wonder why âMarkup Validityâ? is in titlecase. (I wonât report the casing as a separate bug, nor will I reopen this bug report.) Given that the phrase is not a proper noun, the norms of the English which I learned as my mother tongue call for lowercase. I believe that lowercase âmarkup validityâ? is appropriate in most, if not all, varieties of English. The lone nit aside, I congratulate you, Olivier, for satisfying yours truly.