In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gervase Markham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is unfortunate that key people don't care about this, but it is also
>> clear at this date that they aren't going to care. In light of that,
>> attempting to address this without putting some procedural controls in
>> place is likely just to be work that will be quickly eroded (and thus
>> pointless).
>
> We could have rules for high-profile pages, perhaps, but we would have
> to define high-profile.
Why only high-profile? What legitimate excuse is there for any HTML page
on mozilla.org to be invalid?
>> Would it be possible to automate validation of documents on checkin to
>> CVS (and rejection if they fail)?
>
> Pretty sure no.
Signs point to yes. Read about the commitinfo file.
> And we probably wouldn't want to - part of the point of
> this exercise is to lower the barrier to entry for people wanting to
> contribute.
Requiring valid HTML pages is too high a barrier to entry for
contributing to a Web site???
> I think it's good enough that the high-profile pages validate correctly.
> There is no way we can check and fix all 16,000 of them!
Not all at once. But the proper controls can both keep the problem from
getting any worse, and ensure that the number of invalid pages on the
site goes only down, never up.
I am sure this is not a battle worth fighting if you aren't ready to
bring out the big guns. Half-measures will only yield frustration.
Braden
