This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 4473 - "Validating CSS, linking to this result" is confusing
Summary: "Validating CSS, linking to this result" is confusing
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Validator
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Templates (show other bugs)
Version: 0.8.0b1
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Olivier Thereaux
QA Contact: qa-dev tracking
URL: http://validator-test.w3.org/check?ur...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-04-19 07:08 UTC by David Dorward
Modified: 2007-05-07 14:56 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description David Dorward 2007-04-19 07:08:40 UTC
The results page has a subsection entitled "Validating CSS, linking to this result". Would this be better as two subsections? "Linking to this result" and "Validating CSS". The two parts have less in common with each other then "Linking to this result" has to the preceding section about icons.
Comment 1 Olivier Thereaux 2007-04-19 10:57:10 UTC
Good idea.
Comment 2 David Dorward 2007-04-19 11:02:11 UTC
For that matter, could the URL for the "linking to this result" section be merged into the icon code? Perhaps as an alternative with a comment about the unreliability of referer headers?
Comment 3 Olivier Thereaux 2007-04-19 11:08:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Would this be better as two subsections? "Linking to this result" and
> "Validating CSS".

Done in CVS:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/share/templates/en_US/valid.tmpl.diff?r1=1.20&r2=1.21&f=h
(I also softened the wording "should check" -> "can check" because I find the former a little aggressive)

Comment 4 Olivier Thereaux 2007-05-07 14:56:30 UTC
Hi David,

(In reply to comment #2)
> For that matter, could the URL for the "linking to this result" section be
> merged into the icon code? 

Well, there is more to linking than the icon, so maybe a separate section is not a bad thing.

> Perhaps as an alternative with a comment about the
> unreliability of referer headers?

I think we should pass on this for now, because I don't want advocates of crippling referer headers to take this as and endorsement by w3c. 

I am moving this bug to resolved-fixed, but feel free to reopen if you think it should be revisited.

Thanks David.