469,268 Members | 920 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,268 developers. It's quick & easy.

Massive HTML coding errors

The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?
Apr 14 '06
78 4415
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.com> writes:
As I've said many times, we do not, and never did, claim that our product is
an SGML and DTD based validator.


You say it's a validator - something which *by definition* is DTD based.

Do you realize that your claims violate the "Truth in Advertising" act, at
least here in the US? You could be sued for making false claims like that.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Apr 18 '06 #51
"Sherm Pendley" <sh***@dot-app.org> wrote in message
news:m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local...

You say it's a validator - something which *by definition* is DTD based.

Do you realize that your claims violate the "Truth in Advertising" act, at
least here in the US? You could be sued for making false claims like that.


No. It is a validator in the common usage of the term.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
Apr 18 '06 #52
Andreas Prilop wrote:
... or "wierscher". Let's call it a wierscher. ;-)

Gesundheit!

--
not me guv
Apr 18 '06 #53
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.com> writes:
"Sherm Pendley" <sh***@dot-app.org> wrote in message
news:m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local...

You say it's a validator - something which *by definition* is DTD based.

Do you realize that your claims violate the "Truth in Advertising" act, at
least here in the US? You could be sued for making false claims like that.


No. It is a validator in the common usage of the term.


Repetition won't make it so. A validator validates against a DTD. Your
product doesn't do that. It's not a validator.

You've admitted to knowing the difference. That means that your published
claims are intentionally false. False advertising is a crime. I seriously
suggest that you consult an attorney before continuing to make these kinds
of fraudulent claims.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Apr 18 '06 #54

I don't know how many times I've explained this, but here it is again.

CSE HTML Validator is not an HTML validator in the strict technical sense of
the word validator in SGML. I don't, and never did, dispute that.
Furthermore, our website has never claimed that. However, it *IS* a
validator in the common meaning of the word.

The false advertising claim is absurd. I suggest you look up validator in
the dictionary and note all the different meanings. You can even do a google
search and note the various meanings.

I'm tired of this argument as it doesn't help people fix their websites.
It's a waste of time. If you want to stick with one definition of validator,
then go ahead. I have to get back to work helping people do something
constructive rather than spending more time in pointless arguing. :-)

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
"Sherm Pendley" <sh***@dot-app.org> wrote in message
news:m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local...

Repetition won't make it so. A validator validates against a DTD. Your
product doesn't do that. It's not a validator.

You've admitted to knowing the difference. That means that your published
claims are intentionally false. False advertising is a crime. I seriously
suggest that you consult an attorney before continuing to make these kinds
of fraudulent claims.

sherm--

Apr 18 '06 #55
Albert Wiersch wrote:
I don't know how many times I've explained this, but here it is again.
<yawn>
CSE HTML Validator is not an HTML validator in the strict technical
sense of the word validator in SGML.
So it is not a Strict validator. Is it a Transitional validator?

A car is not an automobile in the strict technical sense, either. These
are cars, but they are not automobiles.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/roller-coaster7.jpg
I don't, and never did, dispute that. Furthermore, our website has
never claimed that. However, it *IS* a validator in the common
meaning of the word.
HTML+validator is not the common, everyday usage of the word amongst the
unwashed masses. Among HTML authors, your product is not a validator.

Get used to it.
The false advertising claim is absurd. I suggest you look up validator
in the dictionary and note all the different meanings. You can even
do a google search and note the various meanings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=validator
I'm tired of this argument
Then change the name of it, and you won't have to argue any longer.
as it doesn't help people fix their
websites. It's a waste of time. If you want to stick with one
definition of validator, then go ahead. I have to get back to work
helping people do something constructive rather than spending more
time in pointless arguing. :-)


Usenet: 462, Albert: 1 You lose.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Apr 19 '06 #56
Nick Kew wrote:
A validator, such as Page Valet, the WDG validator, or Validome,
[..].


I hadn't heard of the last of those; thanks!
--
AGw.

Apr 19 '06 #57
In article <Og*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:

I don't, and never did, dispute that. Furthermore, our website has
never claimed that. However, it *IS* a validator in the common
meaning of the word.


HTML+validator is not the common, everyday usage of the word amongst the
unwashed masses. Among HTML authors, your product is not a validator.

Get used to it.


Actually, I think he is right about the common usage. (Yes, I realize
CSE is the arch enemy of many group regulars, but I'm saying this
anyway.)

I am working on a piece of software that is *not* a DTD-based validator
but that checks HTML documents. When I tell about what I am working on
to computer science students and I don't say the word validator, they
say "Oh, you're working on an HTML validator!" once they've have cut
through the obfuscation.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Apr 19 '06 #58
To further the education of mankind, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
vouchsafed:
In article <Og*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:

> I don't, and never did, dispute that. Furthermore, our website has
> never claimed that. However, it *IS* a validator in the common
> meaning of the word.


HTML+validator is not the common, everyday usage of the word amongst the
unwashed masses. Among HTML authors, your product is not a validator.

Get used to it.


Actually, I think he is right about the common usage. (Yes, I realize
CSE is the arch enemy of many group regulars, but I'm saying this
anyway.)

I am working on a piece of software that is *not* a DTD-based validator
but that checks HTML documents. When I tell about what I am working on
to computer science students and I don't say the word validator, they
say "Oh, you're working on an HTML validator!" once they've have cut
through the obfuscation.


That may be so, but if it is not based on the DTD, what is it based on?
Embedded examples?

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 19 '06 #59
In article <Xn**********************************@208.49.80.25 1>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:
To further the education of mankind, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
vouchsafed:

I am working on a piece of software that is *not* a DTD-based validator
but that checks HTML documents. When I tell about what I am working on
to computer science students and I don't say the word validator, they
say "Oh, you're working on an HTML validator!" once they've have cut
through the obfuscation.


That may be so, but if it is not based on the DTD, what is it based on?
Embedded examples?


RELAX NG, Schematron and Java.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Apr 19 '06 #60
Albert Wiersch wrote:

I believe it is misleading to give "real" validators so much
prestige. You'd think with all the talk about how great they are and
that you should always use one, that they could find the most
problems, but they can't and they don't.
It's not a question of "prestige"; a validator serves one purpose, and
lint-tool serves another. There are many errors that a validator is
incapable of detecting, that can easily be detected through other methods.
Fine. So call the alternative what it is, which isn't a validator.
What's wrong with "checker" or "tuner" or "analyzer"?
Because CSE HTML Validator is the name of the product as it has been
for over 9 years.


And herein lies the problem; Wiersch is saddled with a misleading
product-name, which he has been trading on since near the dawn of XML
itself. Arguably (in court, at least) he might be able to justify his
continued use of the name.
It is the type of program 99% of people want when they look for an
"HTML validator". It is an "HTML validator" for the vast majority of
people, and it is a validator in the common usage of the word.
Henri Sivonen says: I am working on a piece of software that is *not* a DTD-based
validator but that checks HTML documents. When I tell about what I am
working on to computer science students and I don't say the word
validator, they say "Oh, you're working on an HTML validator!" once
they've have cut through the obfuscation.


This is sad. It's perfectly understandable that many HTML authors would
be ignorant of XML, and the relationships between XML and HTML; but one
would think CS students would have a better grasp of the terminology. I
guess everyone has to start learning somewhere, and perhaps a CS course
is as good as anywhere.

The term "validator" refers directly to the term "valid" in the context
of XML and SGML, where it has a very specific meaning, and where no
other alternative term exists. That the term may be commonly used to
refer to something else doesn't imply that it does actually mean
something else; on the contrary, that common usage is just wrong.

Consider the term "champagne". This term is in "common usage" to refer
to just about any fizzy dry white wine, or more particularly to wines
made using Methode Champenoise. However it is illegal to *sell* a wine
as champagne, unless it is made from grapes grown in the region of
France around Rheims; vendors who try it discover quickly how litigious
the French can be. Again, the common usage is simply wrong.

I think Herr Wiersch could get off the hook he is hanging from if he
were to place a disclaimer on his website, explaining simply that his
product is not the kind of validator that can determine whether an XML
or SGML document is valid with respect to some DTD. A link to a page
explaining the difference in more detail might help to educate the likes
of Henri's students, should they stumble across it. This would disarm
most of the complaints from denizens of this froup, and would probably
immunise him against legal action too (but IANAL).

--
Jack.
Apr 19 '06 #61
fr*******@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
A validator, such as Page Valet, the WDG validator, or Validome,
[..].

I hadn't heard of the last of those; thanks!


It's more recent than the others. I think its main selling point
is that it's multilingual - the developers are german, and are
keen to offer as many languages as possible.

Having said that, it's a while since I looked, and I could
be misremembering. I have an idea it may have some options
over and above validation.

--
Nick Kew
Apr 19 '06 #62
Henri Sivonen wrote:
HTML+validator is not the common, everyday usage of the word amongst the
unwashed masses. Among HTML authors, your product is not a validator.
Actually, I think he is right about the common usage. (Yes, I realize
CSE is the arch enemy of many group regulars, but I'm saying this
anyway.)


The enemy is misinformation. And what group regulars are giving here
is peer-review, which is something you welcome when you care about
a subject.
I am working on a piece of software that is *not* a DTD-based validator
but that checks HTML documents. When I tell about what I am working on
to computer science students and I don't say the word validator, they
say "Oh, you're working on an HTML validator!" once they've have cut
through the obfuscation.


There's a difference. It would be unduly pedantic to correct every
person you ever have that conversation with - particularly when the
nearest they come to HTML is browsing the web.

But published documentation and advertising claims have no such excuse.
Anyone writing such material should explain the correct terms.
Failure to do so is negligent. Coming from a product vendor,
it makes him a charlatan and a fraud.

--
Nick Kew
Apr 19 '06 #63

"Jack" <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote in message
news:e2*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

I think Herr Wiersch could get off the hook he is hanging from if he
were to place a disclaimer on his website, explaining simply that his
product is not the kind of validator that can determine whether an XML
or SGML document is valid with respect to some DTD. A link to a page
explaining the difference in more detail might help to educate the likes
of Henri's students, should they stumble across it. This would disarm
most of the complaints from denizens of this froup, and would probably
immunise him against legal action too (but IANAL).


We do explain on our website in the FAQ that CSE HTML Validator is not a
DTD, or "real" validator in the strict technical meaning. We've done this
for years, but it hasn't stopped any of the trash talk.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
Apr 19 '06 #64
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Jack" <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote in message
news:e2*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
I think Herr Wiersch could get off the hook he is hanging from if
he were to place a disclaimer on his website, explaining simply
that his product is not the kind of validator that can determine
whether an XML or SGML document is valid with respect to some DTD.
A link to a page explaining the difference in more detail might
help to educate the likes of Henri's students, should they stumble
across it. This would disarm most of the complaints from denizens
of this froup, and would probably immunise him against legal action
too (but IANAL).


We do explain on our website in the FAQ that CSE HTML Validator is
not a DTD, or "real" validator in the strict technical meaning. We've
done this for years, but it hasn't stopped any of the trash talk.

I finally found this; I have actually skimmed the FAQ before, and missed
this paragraph, even though I was explictly looking for something
explaining that your product was not a validator. I guess I was
distracted by other questions that appear higher up the list and receive
more page-space, such as the questions about why sound-effects aren't
working. If I was thinking of buying this because it was a validator, I
would have missed this explanation. It needs to be much more prominent.

BTW: referring to the complaints as "trash talk" is unhelpful. The
complaints are correct, it is you that is in the wrong. You have a
product whose function superficially resembles that of a validator, but
is not one. The product name includes "validator", and you consistently
refer to it as "the validator", or "the validation engine". It is
*this* that is "trash talk".

--
Jack.
Apr 19 '06 #65
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.com> wrote:
We do explain on our website in the FAQ that CSE HTML Validator is not a
DTD, or "real" validator in the strict technical meaning. We've done this
for years, but it hasn't stopped any of the trash talk.


.... in your advertisements, right.

You have written that your heuristic (and eclectic) checker has been called
"CSE HTML Validator" for many years. You present this as an excuse for
misleading potential customers.

That is, you will keep deceiving people because you have done so for many
years.

(The false name is just the top of the iceberg. The full picture is that
"CSE HTML Validator" presents just the opinions of Albert Wiersch, instead of
an attempt at an objective analysis of HTML documents. Of course you can
claim to detect "errors" and "problems" not detected by validators, when you
define yourself what you call an "error" or a "problem". You participate in
Usenet groups _only_ to advertize your product, typically first without
telling you are really advertizing, then presenting the same excuses.
It is then fair that you and your product get flamed, isn't it?)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Apr 19 '06 #66
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
I'm tired of this argument


Then change the name of it, and you won't have to argue any longer.


He obviously isn't going to change the name. About the only reason to
continue the argument - err, discussion - is to educate his potential
victims about his misrepresentation.
Apr 19 '06 #67
To further the education of mankind, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
vouchsafed:
In article <Xn**********************************@208.49.80.25 1>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:
To further the education of mankind, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
vouchsafed:

> I am working on a piece of software that is *not* a DTD-based
> validator but that checks HTML documents. When I tell about what I
> am working on to computer science students and I don't say the word
> validator, they say "Oh, you're working on an HTML validator!" once
> they've have cut through the obfuscation.


That may be so, but if it is not based on the DTD, what is it based
on? Embedded examples?


RELAX NG, Schematron and Java.


So would a proper analogy be one of trying to correct language grammar by
using an empirical deductive system rather than the actual rules for that
grammar?

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 19 '06 #68

"Jack" <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote in message
news:e2*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

I finally found this; I have actually skimmed the FAQ before, and missed
this paragraph, even though I was explictly looking for something
explaining that your product was not a validator. I guess I was
distracted by other questions that appear higher up the list and receive
more page-space, such as the questions about why sound-effects aren't
working. If I was thinking of buying this because it was a validator, I
would have missed this explanation. It needs to be much more prominent.


I'm glad you found it. I would make it more prominent if it was an issue,
but it's not for the vast majority of people. Most people want to fix their
HTML because they want people to see it in real-world browsers and they
don't care about strictly conforming to a standard based on an SGML parser
that no real-world browser uses or will likely ever use. Besides, you could
argue that the standard is Microsoft Internet Explorer, because that's what
most people use. So it's more important that people be able to actually see
their web pages in a browser than for a real validator to say it's
technically valid.

If I ever get a significant portion of people wanting or asking for a DTD
based validator, then I will definitely give it more priority, but I don't
expect that to happen.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
Apr 19 '06 #69
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Tony wrote:
He obviously isn't going to change the name. About the only reason
to continue the argument - err, discussion - is to educate his
potential victims about his misrepresentation.


Might I mention

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...dd8dad2b139f4d

from January 1997, or

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...eb235848b4d9e2

from late 1996. It seems this topic just goes round and round.

In an SGML/XML context, the fact is that the term "validate" was
already "taken", even before 1996 as far as SGML was concerned, as a
technical term with a defined meaning. It wasn't open to some
marketing type to breeze in and make it mean whatever their gullible
customers were willing to swallow.

And this was on record in the very place where the product had
been advertised in that same year:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...42154282c80bdd

In any case, a fraud is still objectively a fraud, even when the
defrauded party is unaware of it - and even quite happy with the deal
they got.

EOT for me, I think.
Apr 19 '06 #70
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> writes:
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.com> wrote:
We do explain on our website in the FAQ that CSE HTML Validator is not a
DTD, or "real" validator in the strict technical meaning. We've done this
for years, but it hasn't stopped any of the trash talk.


... in your advertisements, right.

You have written that your heuristic (and eclectic) checker has been called
"CSE HTML Validator" for many years. You present this as an excuse for
misleading potential customers.

That is, you will keep deceiving people because you have done so for many
years.


For the record, the address listed on CSE's "contacts" page is:

AI INTERNET SOLUTIONS
PO BOX 270376
FLOWER MOUND TX 75027-0376
USA

Here's the URL for the Better Business Bureau's complaint form:

<http://complaints.bbb.org/welcome2.asp>

Here's the URL for the Flower Mound, TX Chamber of Commerce:

<http://www.flowermoundchamber.com/>

This snake-oil salesman has been using fraudulent advertising for years -
let's do something about it.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Apr 19 '06 #71
Albert Wiersch wrote:

I'm glad you found it. I would make it more prominent if it was an
issue, but it's not for the vast majority of people.
The vast majority of people are ignorant, and I don't pay much attention
to their opinions, in general.
Most people want to fix their HTML because they want people to see it
in real-world browsers and they don't care about strictly conforming
to a standard based on an SGML parser that no real-world browser
uses or will likely ever use.
However a general movement has been happening towards more regular forms
of HTML and away from tag-soup. It's not about SGML, it's about
conformance to DTDs. In order to get browsers to switch out of quirks
mode, you have to at least claim that your HTML conforms to a DTD, and
once an author realises what that means, he may very well want to ensure
that his HTML *does* conform. He will learn that a validator is the way
to verify this.

Your attitude seems to be that claiming conformance to a DTD is just
like any kind of meta tag in tag-soup HTML - you can say what you want.
This is consistent with your attitude that the term validator means what
you want it to mean.
Besides, you could argue that the standard is Microsoft Internet
Explorer, because that's what most people use.
You'd *never* catch me arguing that any 'standard' is defined by the
vendor of the most popular product. As far as I'm concerned, a standard
is a set of conventions established by a standards-setting body. But
this is beside the point; validity isn't about conforming to a
'standard', it's about whether a document is consistent with the DTD
that it says it's consistent with. Any well-formed XML or SGML document
can be valid, if it contains a DTD declaration, and is consistent with
that DTD. HTML documents that claim consistency with some DTD should
(FSVO 'should') be consistent with that DTD, and some people want to check.
So it's more important that people be able to actually see their web
pages in a browser than for a real validator to say it's technically
valid.
NO. You haven't made that case, and you are wrong.

Note that people here are not saying that using your linter is less
important than checking validity, or more important; many of your
critics have taken troubles to point out that both are useful.

The point is this: if you want to remove general cruft from your HTML,
then you need a cruft-checker (assuming you can't do it manually). If
you want to establish validity, then you need a validator. Validators
don't check for general cruft; cruft-checkers don't check for validity.
It's nonsense to say that one is more important than the other, since
they aren't alternatives.
If I ever get a significant portion of people wanting or asking for a
DTD based validator, then I will definitely give it more priority,
but I don't expect that to happen.

That's not what people are asking; they are asking you to stop insisting
that your program is any kind of validator.

--
Jack.
Apr 19 '06 #72
Jack wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Besides, you could argue that the standard is Microsoft Internet
Explorer, because that's what most people use.


You'd *never* catch me arguing that any 'standard' is defined by the
vendor of the most popular product. As far as I'm concerned, a standard
is a set of conventions established by a standards-setting body. But
this is beside the point; validity isn't about conforming to a
'standard', it's about whether a document is consistent with the DTD
that it says it's consistent with. Any well-formed XML or SGML document
can be valid, if it contains a DTD declaration, and is consistent with
that DTD. HTML documents that claim consistency with some DTD should
(FSVO 'should') be consistent with that DTD, and some people want to check.


In case the significance and importance of the distinction still isn't
clear to Mr. Wiersch, let's try bringing Noam Chomsky's contribution
into this: "Colorless green dreams sleep furiously". This is a perfectly
valid English sentence. It's meaningless, but it's valid. "He ran very
rapid" isn't valid, though most people would be able to figure out what
it means. An application analogous to the CSE product might be able to
tell that the former sentence is meaningless and that the latter
sentence is meaningful, but doing so would be semantic analysis, not
validation. Mr. Wiersch could call it validation all he wanted, but that
would just be a demonstration of ignorance, obliviousness, or
intentional disregard.
Apr 19 '06 #73
In article <Xn**********************************@208.49.80.25 1>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:
To further the education of mankind, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
vouchsafed:
In article <Xn**********************************@208.49.80.25 1>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:
That may be so, but if it is not based on the DTD, what is it based
on? Embedded examples?


RELAX NG, Schematron and Java.


So would a proper analogy be one of trying to correct language grammar by
using an empirical deductive system rather than the actual rules for that
grammar?


No. I'm focusing on HTML5. The grammar of HTML5 is expressed in English.
Any software implementation that correctly embodies the grammar is as
proper as any other. There's no normative schema as holy writ. (For
those in doubt, the spec specifically says that you cannot implement an
HTML5 conformance checker as a system that only does SGML DTD-based
validation or XML DTD-based validation, because SGML DTDs and XML DTDs
simply are not expressive enough.)

I believe my approach is technically sane, but I am sure other
approaches (which would take more work) could, for example, give more
precise error messages.

I am throwing HTML 4.01 support in as an extra. Doing so is totally
bogus from the point of view of the fiction about HTML being an
application of SGML. However, it is useful considering the real world.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Apr 19 '06 #74

"Jack" <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote in message
news:e2*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

That's not what people are asking; they are asking you to stop insisting
that your program is any kind of validator.


People can ask and I'll decide what to call the product. The fact remains
that it *IS* a validator in the common meaning of the term. If some people
don't like that, then they can change the common meaning of the term and
I'll be happy to change the name of the program when the common meaning
changes.

The only people whining about it are a few people here. It's the same few
people. The vast majority are very happy and satisfied with the name. The
program fits the bill perfectly for what they were looking for. They are not
blinded and can see the value in such a program. Even some of the
complainers admit the usefulness of a non-DTD based validator/checker.

Though I do agree with what you say for the most part.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
Apr 19 '06 #75
In article <e2*******************@news.demon.co.uk>,
Jack <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote:
The term "validator" refers directly to the term "valid" in the context
of XML and SGML, where it has a very specific meaning, and where no
other alternative term exists.
As far as the greater XML context goes, I suggest you check out ISO/IEC
FDIS 19757 parts 2 and 3.

Part 2 is titled: "Regular-grammar-based *validation* -- RELAX NG". Part
3 is titled: "Rule-based *validation* -- Schematron".
A link to a page
explaining the difference in more detail might help to educate the likes
of Henri's students,


Heh. They aren't my students. :-)

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Apr 19 '06 #76
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.com> writes:
People can ask and I'll decide what to call the product. The fact remains
that it *IS* a validator in the common meaning of the term.
It is not a validator in the correct, relevant usage of the term.
The only people whining about it are a few people here. It's the same few
people.
Yes, the ones who understand what a validator is, and who aren't happy about
the fact that you're lying to your customers.
The vast majority are very happy and satisfied with the name.
The fact that many of your customers believe your lies doesn't change the
fact that they are lies.
program fits the bill perfectly for what they were looking for.
Straw man. No one has said your app is useless, and the fact that it serves
a useful function doesn't make it a validator.
They are not
blinded and can see the value in such a program.
Straw man. The value of your app isn't under dispute. Your claim that your
app is a validator, when it clearly is not, is what's being disputed.
Even some of the
complainers admit the usefulness of a non-DTD based validator/checker.


Indeed we do, because it is useful. That doesn't make it a validator.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Apr 19 '06 #77

"Sherm Pendley" <sh***@dot-app.org> wrote in message
news:m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local...

The fact that many of your customers believe your lies doesn't change the
fact that they are lies.


It's only a "lie" to those who think there is only one definition of
validator. Those people are actually lying to themselves.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
Apr 19 '06 #78
To further the education of mankind, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
vouchsafed:
In article <Xn**********************************@208.49.80.25 1>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:
To further the education of mankind, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
vouchsafed:
> In article <Xn**********************************@208.49.80.25 1>,
> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote: >> That may be so, but if it is not based on the DTD, what is it
>> based on? Embedded examples?
>
> RELAX NG, Schematron and Java.


So would a proper analogy be one of trying to correct language
grammar by using an empirical deductive system rather than the actual
rules for that grammar?


No. I'm focusing on HTML5. The grammar of HTML5 is expressed in
English. Any software implementation that correctly embodies the
grammar is as proper as any other. There's no normative schema as holy
writ. (For those in doubt, the spec specifically says that you cannot
implement an HTML5 conformance checker as a system that only does SGML
DTD-based validation or XML DTD-based validation, because SGML DTDs
and XML DTDs simply are not expressive enough.)

I believe my approach is technically sane, but I am sure other
approaches (which would take more work) could, for example, give more
precise error messages.

I am throwing HTML 4.01 support in as an extra. Doing so is totally
bogus from the point of view of the fiction about HTML being an
application of SGML. However, it is useful considering the real world.


I appreciate the explanation but respectfully have no further substantive
comment to make. I know very little about html5, and my own focus is on
what is in primary usage today (-which I am still learning.)

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 19 '06 #79

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.