2015-08-11 15:21 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw <zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com>:

2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:
> You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For
> example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word
> », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of
> readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific errors).

maybe...
but, there's another concern about the BGB (mentioned by Ankry), the mental problem of new users - when they "validate" in edit mode or Visual Editor and notice a typo (or absence of comma) it is just a click to improve the text, but. .. in view mode, after noticing the error, you have to do IT all (which is such a inconvenience causing BGB proposal): enter to the edit mode, find again the same place in the text, place the cursor ... I'm afraid of thinking like: "Uh ... it's just one comma, I click right away in the BGB...

Z.

That a very good concern and I agree with you but how does the BGB will change anything in this situation?

In fact, in this case, the problem is ni the edit mode, not in the BGB. And the solution is not to forbidden tool or edition but to explain to the user what to do and how to do it.

The BGB is not an idea of tool to improve correction but only to quicken the validation when there is no correction to do
(and per se, validation is not an improvement at all ; the exact same text could be red, yellow or green and could be perfect or very bad, don't mix the metrics and the subject of the metrics).

Cdlt, ~nicolas