> > 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?
Because there are 5 of us and 16,000 of them :-) Are you volunteering to
fix all 16,000?
OK, fair enough. _I_ _consider_ only those to be worth making the effort
to fix. If other people want to fix other ones, that's cool :-)
> > 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???
Yes :-) Well, it depends how you validate them (as in, as what sort of
HTML.) Also, if we are going to encourage people to use Mozilla Composer,
what happens if it produces stuff that doesn't pass.
> > 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 agree. But that's a different point entirely.
Gerv
