Julian Mehnle wrote:
However, for regular operations, two equal webmaster
positions shall be delegated by the council.
Please make this "three webmasters" appointing WDG as the 3rd
webmaster with a veto right until the new site has more than
sixty pages. The URL of the 3rd webmaster shall be (remove
folding and replace & by & in any href="..." parameter)
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?warnings=yes
&spider=yes
&hidevalid=yes
&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com
Rationale: So far only you and Wayne managed it to create Web
pages which are visible with any browser and / or valid HTML.
I simply refuse to link to pages which are not visible with
my own browser (e.g. why.html or the election results), and
WDG offers to check complete sites for free (up to 60 pages).
Fixing errors and warnings found by WDG is easy, but it's not
always the same as "visible with any browser". To bypass any
bogus WDG results it's possible to list "forbidden" pages in
the robots.txt in a User-agent: WFG_SiteValidator section.
A public tool to catch incompatibilities between legacy markup
(Wilbur) and modern CSS is Delorie's WPBCV (Web Page Backwards
Compatibility Vierwer):
http://purl.net/net/scape/WySiWyG/www.example.com
Unfortunately it won't catch subtle width-problems on why.hhml,
but other errors like a white CSS foreground on a black legacy
background resulting in legacy black on black would be obvious.
There are also public validators for CSS, colour schemes, etc.
I've only tested the "Colorblind Web Page Filter" with legacy
markup, e.g. (one line, replace u=www.example.com):
http://colorfilter.wickline.org/index.cgi?a=1;r=;l=0;j=1;
u=www.example.com;t=m
These webmasters shall be trusted by the council
Yes, you can trust that the WDG bot is a good bot, and like all
bots it's tame if you feed it regularly. It also has a sister
at http://uk.htmlhelp.com - so if one of them is busy or down
the other is probably available.
They shall consult the council on any significant issues that
are propably controversial.
Maybe the Council should decide to support Web standards in a
backwards compatible way. This means Latin-1 instead of UTF-8
among other things. It also means "should work without CSS,
Java, JavaScript, Flash, PDF, MP3" and what else. Note that I
didn't say that multimedia is bad, I only said that it SHOULD
also work without it. A why.html link MUST work on the most
modest PDA or WebTV if these devices can display HTML at all.
The history of the SPF web pages is a history of disgrace and
unprofessional behaviour. If amazon can do it, "we" can do it.
And if we can't we have no business to tamper with the mail of
3rd parties because we would be well-known ignorants and kooks.
It's a pain to defend SPF in public if the "official" web site
tries to "sell" SPF as some kind of magic FUSSP, or worse as an
irrelevant predecessor of Sender-ID. This is XAB, please fix
it. Meng probably still has his nice old design. Bye, Frank