Viewer, I'm told, used to have an icon at the bottom that showed red if the page had bad html, green if it was good html. We've had several cases now of pages rendering incorrectly because they specified a DTD to which they did not actually adhere. But from the user's point of view, what happens is that the page doesn't lay out correctly in mozilla though it does in every other browser, and there's no clue as to why. It would be *really* helpful if we could get some space, perhaps next to the status bar, where we could put a small icon which would turn red if we saw bad html; better yet, somewhere where the user could click on the red icon and get something like a view source window popping up highlighting the bad html (Rick says this capability is already partially implemented, though not yet ready for prime time). If we can't get a red/nonred icon, then we should at least do something like change the status bar to say that we saw bad html -- something that will give the user a clue that there's a problem.
A red/green light would really clash with the default blue chrome. 'Document: Done' needs to be changed anyway, maybe: Done. / Done, but with errors. would suffice. But then there is no place to determine what type of errors. What about a 'Compliance' tab in the page info dialog? I'd really like to see mozilla's syntax checking as good as w3c's validator. Would really make it of such a great use to developers, and emphasize mozilla's compliance as a renderer.
I don't know if Mozilla provides any code yet to get the information needed for a "Compliance Tab", but until it does the simplest would be something clickable which indicates there are problems with the page and on clicking passes the page to http://validator.w3.org/. The results can of course be fed into the sidebar. Perhaps the progress bar? Give it a tooltip and perhaps an orange/red border?
I like detecting bad HTML, but see bugid 6211.
off my bug list
Assignee: ben → nobody
"Document done (with errors)" may be misunderstood. (Did Mozilla err?) It would be better to say the document was in error: eg. "Bad HTML", "The Document contained errors.", "Erroneous document".
Mozilla gets a lots of crap because it doesn't handle erroneous pages exactly like other browsers so this would _the_ way to direct people's aggresion away from Mozilla (and Netscape 6) to the page authors. Sure, some would still blame Mozilla, but people would soon learn to look for the visual cue that tells you that the page was badly written when it doesn't look right. I recommend this for nsbeta3 to save Nestcape's as. If there is no visual indicator that the page contains errors, all blame will hit Netscape and there are already many complaining even though the browser isn't yet well spread. (I also think page authors would like it. Many aren't even aware that their code isn't perfect) For the actual UI, I like a green and red blob with informative tooltips in the status bar best.
changing to rfe and making summary more clear. what do we do in the case where the page doesn't declare a dtd? compare against 4.01 transitional? my opinion is that bug 6211 would be very useful, but this bug by itself wouldn't help much. besides, it would be hard to debug this feature without being able to see why mozilla thinks a page is bogus. perhaps we could do this and dump errors to the console window for now. when users click on the indicator, they will be told that error reporting is a developing feature and they have to start mozilla with a console (mozilla.exe - console) if they want to see the errors. that should be enough to allow this feature to be debugged. sending users to validator.w3.org (as firstname.lastname@example.org suggested) would be an alternative partial solution, but it wouldn't let mozilla say why it handles something the way it does, or give hints such as "most of the time extra </script> tags are encountered, the cause is trying to include '</script>' in a string within a <script> without escaping it as '<\/script>'."
Severity: normal → enhancement
Summary: Want "html quality" indicator in the UI → [RFE] show whether page meets declared dtd (was: Want "html quality" indicator in the UI)
I agree with Daniel Bratell. Do we have the info, that the page is bogus, somewhere easily accessible? If yes, a basic implementation (some hint in the status bar plus a link to validator.w3.org) would be very easy, not?
Would the parser component helo this?
Comments from an NG post by me in which I proposed a UI for this sort of thing... My proposed UI involves a modal dialog (with a "don't show me this again [for this site]" but another way would be a statusbar indication and sidebar panel. The most important aspects of my proposal are: * The errors are available behind a "Details>>" button * The user has the option to choose quirks or strict mode - in other words, if a page breaks its own DTD, the user can tell Moz to ignore the DTD and act as if the page didn't specify one. * It would only apply for pages where the Strict parsing mode would be triggered (HTML >4.01 Strict or any XHTML?) My full proposal including suggested message text is at news://news.mozilla.org/399AF13A.863EEB8C%40netreach.net
Stuart Ballard - whould you write this?
Marking nsbeta3- per pdt review
iCab for MacOS uses a smiling/frowning face to indicate good/bad HTML. There's also a very usefull error report available, if errors are found on the page. Find more info on <http://www.icab.de/smile.html> Michael
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 47108 ***
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.