Hi, I just happened upon this thread while checking the site-comments archive for something else.
* Danny Ayers <[email protected]> [2011-02-01 10:49+0100] > For reasons I forget, I'm subscribed to [email protected], archived > at [1]. Aside from a recent flurry about how wonderful the new HTML5 > material is (and requests for stickers - me too!) the majority of > messages seem to be about questionable markup on the site. I don't > know what processes are already in place for checking the > accessibility and usability of pages, but that there are any messages > of this nature suggests that things aren't quite as joined-up as they > should be in W3C-land. : > A good way for dealing with this would be for the W3C to instigate an > independent review, and to put automated processes* in place to ensure > continuing quality of material. You might be interested in this note from a few years ago on a related system we used for a while: useful QA gizmo: check popular docs for HTML validity http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2001Sep/0031.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2001Sep/0033.html It eventually succumbed to bit rot but I may revive it at some point. -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://www.w3.org/People/Gerald/ World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ tel:+1-604-906-1232 mailto:[email protected]
