468,257 Members | 1,407 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,257 developers. It's quick & easy.

CSS software tools sought

The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It
does not work in Vista. I would like to find a
replacement/replacement that did the following

1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are
already present and that does some minimal editing on field values.

2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up.

3. finds illegal class tags in my markup

4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet

5. validates syntax strictly

6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours.

7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
even by eyedropper from some other app.

8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.

9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine.

10. validate embedded styles in my HTML.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 11 '07 #1
158 4517
Roedy Green schreef:
The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It
does not work in Vista. I would like to find a
replacement/replacement that did the following
[snipped]
>
8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.
Would you mind explaining why you would want that?

Thanks,
RW

Jun 11 '07 #2
I have found that STYLE MASTER 4.6 has met all my needs.
BTW you can try before you buy. Trial period is aabout 30 days.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:48:11 GMT, Roedy Green <se*********@mindprod.com.invalidwrote:
>The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It
does not work in Vista. I would like to find a
replacement/replacement that did the following

1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are
already present and that does some minimal editing on field values.

2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up.

3. finds illegal class tags in my markup

4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet

5. validates syntax strictly

6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours.

7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
even by eyedropper from some other app.

8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.

9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine.

10. validate embedded styles in my HTML.
Regards

A Driver
www.elitetaxi.co.uk
Jun 11 '07 #3
On 11 Jun, 11:21, Any Driver <a.dri...@elitetaxi.co.ukwrote:
I have found that STYLE MASTER 4.6 has met all my needs.
One of my needs for such web-authoring tools is that they use it
themselves, and that they use it correctly.

So that's a "No" to Style Master then.

Jun 11 '07 #4
"Roedy Green" <se*********@mindprod.com.invalidwrote in message
news:53********************************@4ax.com...
The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It
does not work in Vista. I would like to find a
replacement/replacement that did the following

1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are
already present and that does some minimal editing on field values.

2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up.

3. finds illegal class tags in my markup

4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet

5. validates syntax strictly

6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours.

7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
even by eyedropper from some other app.

8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.

9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine.

10. validate embedded styles in my HTML.
Wow, does TopStyle do all that in XP? My CF Studio 5 came with a version of
TopStyle light that I've found clumsy and inadequate but maybe I should have
given the full version a chance. Maybe I still will if it's not too late.

In the meantime, I've found that the Studio does a great deal of
verification and allows for a great deal of customization, including custom
tool bars. It's been so good that I'm having a difficult time talking myself
into learning DreamWeaver MX with which it was included.

But if TopStyle does all that in XP, I'll definitely buy it.

El
Jun 11 '07 #5
>"Roedy Green" <se*********@mindprod.com.invalidwrote in message
news:53********************************@4ax.com.. .
>The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It
does not work in Vista. I would like to find a
replacement/replacement that did the following

1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are
already present and that does some minimal editing on field values.

2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up.

3. finds illegal class tags in my markup

4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet

5. validates syntax strictly

6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours.

7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
even by eyedropper from some other app.

8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.

9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine.

10. validate embedded styles in my HTML.

Wow, does TopStyle do all that in XP? My CF Studio 5 came with a version of
TopStyle light that I've found clumsy and inadequate but maybe I should have
given the full version a chance. Maybe I still will if it's not too late.

In the meantime, I've found that the Studio does a great deal of
verification and allows for a great deal of customization, including custom
tool bars. It's been so good that I'm having a difficult time talking myself
into learning DreamWeaver MX with which it was included.

But if TopStyle does all that in XP, I'll definitely buy it.

El

Today TopStyle users have seen (at last) evidence that NewsGator are
preparing to update Topstyle (Vista and some bug fixes) shortly, and
then to work on TopStyle 4.0 --
http://www.newsgator.com/forum/shwme...essageid=28572

--
Chris Hughes
"I intend to live for ever. So far, so good..."
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk
Jun 12 '07 #6
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:08:12 +0200, Rob Waaijenberg
<ro************@hotmail.comwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.

Would you mind explaining why you would want that?
It ensures I spelled the font names precisely, including spaces,
especially in secondary font choices.

Sometimes I would specify a font I don't have myself, but then at
least I would be warned.

I have been working with Albert Wiersch at CSE to put the following
features into HTML Validator

1. recognise a font not installed

2. recognise an "uncommon" font. I compiled a big list of commonly
used fonts.

--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 13 '07 #7
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:54:22 GMT, "El Kabong" <da********@verizon.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Wow, does TopStyle do all that in XP?
>1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are
already present and that does some minimal editing on field values.
yes
>>
2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up.
yes
>>
3. finds illegal class tags in my markup
yes
>>
4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet
yes
>>
5. validates syntax strictly
validates, but not that strictly. It lets through stuff that trips
browsers and that HTMLValidator catches and W3C catches.
>>
6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours.
on demand, but not for proofing.
>>
7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
even by eyedropper from some other app.
just by hex or swatch.
>>
8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.
no
>>
9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine.
no
>>
10. validate embedded styles in my HTML.
no
>
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 13 '07 #8
Chris Hughes wrote:
>
>"Roedy Green" <se*********@mindprod.com.invalidwrote in message
news:53********************************@4ax.com.. .
>>The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It
does not work in Vista. I would like to find a
replacement/replacement that did the following

1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are
already present and that does some minimal editing on field values.

2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up.

3. finds illegal class tags in my markup

4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet

5. validates syntax strictly

6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours.

7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
even by eyedropper from some other app.

8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.

9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine.

10. validate embedded styles in my HTML.

Wow, does TopStyle do all that in XP? My CF Studio 5 came with a
version of
TopStyle light that I've found clumsy and inadequate but maybe I
should have
given the full version a chance. Maybe I still will if it's not too late.

In the meantime, I've found that the Studio does a great deal of
verification and allows for a great deal of customization, including
custom
tool bars. It's been so good that I'm having a difficult time talking
myself
into learning DreamWeaver MX with which it was included.

But if TopStyle does all that in XP, I'll definitely buy it.

El

Today TopStyle users have seen (at last) evidence that NewsGator are
preparing to update Topstyle (Vista and some bug fixes) shortly, and
then to work on TopStyle 4.0 --
http://www.newsgator.com/forum/shwme...essageid=28572
Not only that but Nick Bradbury, the author of both TS and HS, has taken
over the development. More than valuable to follow this development in
my opinion.

Louise
Jun 13 '07 #9
Roedy Green wrote:
I have been working with Albert Wiersch at CSE to put the following
features into HTML Validator
Get him to change the name...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 13 '07 #10
Roedy Green schreef:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:08:12 +0200, Rob Waaijenberg
<ro************@hotmail.comwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>>8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.
Would you mind explaining why you would want that?

It ensures I spelled the font names precisely, including spaces,
especially in secondary font choices.
OK
Sometimes I would specify a font I don't have myself, but then at
least I would be warned.
I have been working with Albert Wiersch at CSE to put the following
features into HTML Validator

1. recognise a font not installed

2. recognise an "uncommon" font. I compiled a big list of commonly
used fonts.
How big is this list. And can we find it somewhere?

Rob
>

Jun 13 '07 #11
>>7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
>>even by eyedropper from some other app.
just by hex
And HSL
>or swatch.
--
Chris Hughes
"I intend to live for ever. So far, so good..."
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk
Jun 13 '07 #12
Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
Roedy Green schreef:
>>
I compiled a big list of commonly
used fonts.

How big is this list.
It can't really be very big, unless it's just fonts that are installed
by default on WinXP or something like that. The fonts common to
different Windows versions is a short list to begin with, there are few
similarities between Win and Mac fonts, and almost none between Win and
Linux.
And can we find it somewhere?
This has been published for years, and is still updated:
http://codestyle.org/css/font-family...dResults.shtml

FYI, the numbers can be misleading, so take it all with a very large
grain of salt.

--
Berg
Jun 13 '07 #13
Scripsit Beauregard T. Shagnasty:
Roedy Green wrote:
>I have been working with Albert Wiersch at CSE to put the following
features into HTML Validator

Get him to change the name...
The "CSE HTML Validator" has already become famous for bogosity and
deliberate lying, so adding foolish font availability checks would fit into
the picture.

(There's nothing inherently unrealistic in the idea of font name checks, but
it would require a careful implementation. Actually even a _trivial_ check
for common misspellings would help. But I'm sure "CSE HTML Validator" will
try something "better" and fail miserably.)

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 13 '07 #14

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:X%********************@reader1.news.saunalaht i.fi...
>
The "CSE HTML Validator" has already become famous for bogosity and
deliberate lying, so adding foolish font availability checks would fit
into the picture.
Not true. The additional checks that CSE HTML Validator can be quite useful
because they find potential problems that otherwise would go undetected
(perhaps that is one of the reasons why the program has been around for over
10 years and has received numerous testimonials). For example, see what CSE
HTML Validator finds with that the W3C validator completely misses:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

You continually bash CSE HTML Validator simply because you don't like the
name, even though it now includes a DTD based validator.
(There's nothing inherently unrealistic in the idea of font name checks,
but it would require a careful implementation. Actually even a _trivial_
check for common misspellings would help. But I'm sure "CSE HTML
Validator" will try something "better" and fail miserably.)
So you admit there could be some value in checking font names and then you
bash CSE HTML Validator again but have provided no good reasons to dislike
it.

Albert
Jun 13 '07 #15
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
You continually bash CSE HTML Validator
Usually only after you have popped up to advertize it, etc.
simply because you don't like the name,
My liking it has nothing to do with the fact that you have selled a product
under a _false_ name. For ten years or so, according to your statement.
even though it now includes a DTD based validator.
Vow... a commercial product, sold as an HTML validator for ten years, now
even includes a validator!!

Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying?

Let me guess... you may have finally souped in some validator code from
somewhere (there are free codes available, after all), but your phoney
validator _still_ claims that a document contains _errors_ when it does not
contain markup errors that violate the DTD. That would mean keeping it
consistently wrong.
So you admit there could be some value in checking font names
That's obvious to anyone. It's a little less obvious, though also true, that
doing such checks _wrongly_ is worse than useful. There is absolutely
nothing wrong in using a font name like Foobar (literally) in a font-family
rule, as long as the authors knows what he is doing (and "CSE HTML
Validator" won't help here, since it issues misleading and plain wrong
information).

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 13 '07 #16

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:y%*********************@reader1.news.saunalah ti.fi...
>
My liking it has nothing to do with the fact that you have selled a
product under a _false_ name. For ten years or so, according to your
statement.
Not a false name. Ask 99.9% of people what they want when they want an HTML
validator.
Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying?
I don't expect you ever to believe anything I say, but confusing people and
bashing a product because of your claims of "lying" (because you don't like
the product name) is not appropropriate and I will always try to set the
facts straight.
Let me guess... you may have finally souped in some validator code from
somewhere (there are free codes available, after all), but your phoney
validator _still_ claims that a document contains _errors_ when it does
not contain markup errors that violate the DTD. That would mean keeping it
consistently wrong.
Maybe you should stop guessing and actually use the product and know what
you're talking about before bashing something you've never (or hardly) used.
I won't review something that I've not actually used for a fair amount of
time.
>
>So you admit there could be some value in checking font names

That's obvious to anyone. It's a little less obvious, though also true,
that doing such checks _wrongly_ is worse than useful. There is absolutely
nothing wrong in using a font name like Foobar (literally) in a
font-family rule, as long as the authors knows what he is doing (and "CSE
HTML Validator" won't help here, since it issues misleading and plain
wrong information).
So *optionally* checking font names and informing the user that the font
name might not exist or it might be misspelled because it's not recognized
is doing it wrongly? I don't think so. Again, I recommend that you actually
know what CSE HTML Validator does before you bash it.

Also, feel free to tell me what this "plain wrong information" is. If it is
truly wrong, then I'll be happy to fix it.

For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html

Albert
Jun 14 '07 #17
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
Also, feel free to tell me what this "plain wrong information" is. If
it is truly wrong, then I'll be happy to fix it.
It has been repeatedly explained in public why the "CSE HTML Validator", in
addition to carrying an intentionally wrong and misleading name, issues
incorrect "error messages" that are based just on its author's opinions and
taste.

You have repeatedly ignored this and kept misleading people. No wonder,
since you make money out of it.

You have repeatedly jumped in into discussions with no other agenda than
advertizing your product.

So your promises about fixing it are not worth anything.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 14 '07 #18

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:Pr********************@reader1.news.saunalaht i.fi...
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>Also, feel free to tell me what this "plain wrong information" is. If
it is truly wrong, then I'll be happy to fix it.

It has been repeatedly explained in public why the "CSE HTML Validator",
in addition to carrying an intentionally wrong and misleading name, issues
incorrect "error messages" that are based just on its author's opinions
and taste.
If that's the way you feel, then just use the DTD based validator and forget
about all the problems your pages may have that can't be found using only a
DTD based validator.

Feel free, if you ever want to, to actually state a specific error message
that CSE HTML Validator generates that has no basis in real-world issues. I
challenge you to find a specific error message that is worthless to most web
developers.
You have repeatedly ignored this and kept misleading people. No wonder,
since you make money out of it.
The reason I make money out of it is because our users find benefit and
value to the program (or they wouldn't buy it), much more of a benefit than
they would get using a DTD based validator that doesn't find nearly the
amount of potential problems as CSE HTML Validator does. For those who want
to know what I'm referring to, there are great examples at
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html
You have repeatedly jumped in into discussions with no other agenda than
advertizing your product.
No, just responding false information. If your posting of misleading
information and accusations of "lying" causes me to respond to it and thus
more people to find out about CSE HTML Validator, then that's great.

Albert
Jun 14 '07 #19
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:43:05 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>The "CSE HTML Validator" has already become famous for bogosity and
deliberate lying, so adding foolish font availability checks would fit into
the picture.
would you care to elaborate? My complaint is excessive pickiness, but
it can be turned off.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 14 '07 #20
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:07:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>Vow... a commercial product, sold as an HTML validator for ten years, now
even includes a validator!!

Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying?
What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many
years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time. It now
validates CSS as well.

It gives you very fine control of just how picky you want to be so you
can gradually migrate your site to ever stricter standards.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 15 '07 #21
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:06:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>It has been repeatedly explained in public why the "CSE HTML Validator", in
addition to carrying an intentionally wrong and misleading name, issues
incorrect "error messages" that are based just on its author's opinions and
taste.
So what? It is like a LINT for HTML. You don't fix everything a LINT
points out either. It just points you to possible problem areas.

If you want a W3C validator, use their validator. It is not nearly as
convenient or as useful in rapidly cleaning up your HTML.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 15 '07 #22
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:59:38 +0200, Rob Waaijenberg
<ro************@hotmail.comwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>How big is this list. And can we find it somewhere?
My lists are at http://mindprod.com/jgloss/browserfonts.html

You can download them in text form.

I don't know how many of these Albert included.

--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 15 '07 #23
Scripsit Roedy Green:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:07:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
You have odd attributions, if not misleading.
>Vow... a commercial product, sold as an HTML validator for ten
years, now even includes a validator!!

Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying?

What are you talking about?
You're new here, aren't you? And did you miss the obvious irony? For years,
the author of the "CSE HTML Validator" has made money by selling his
product, despite even admitting that it is not a validator, yet kept the
misleading name - and _now_ he presents as great news that the "validator"
even contains (according to his claim) a validator!
I have been using HTML Validator for many years.
Surely some people are using it. Otherwise its author hadn't kept selling
it.
It has been validating HTML for a very long time.
No it hasn't, as its author has repeatedly admitted, followed by no change
in the name and advertizing - just excuses that it's not a validator in
"technical sense", as if "validation" were not, in the markup context, a
strictly and technically defined term.
It now validates CSS as well.
I would not trust any "validation" reports from a software that has been
sold under a false name for ten years.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Consider using a markup validator:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...indprod.com%2F

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 15 '07 #24
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:17:16 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>No it hasn't, as its author has repeatedly admitted, followed by no change
in the name and advertizing - just excuses that it's not a validator in
"technical sense", as if "validation" were not, in the markup context, a
strictly and technically defined term.
In your world. But not in mine. Byte published my work on data
validation back in 1985, long before HTML existed. The term validator
has generic meaning.

Since it has always been a try before you buy product, there was never
any deception involved. You are just being prissy.

There are far more important reasons to trash a product than its name.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 15 '07 #25
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:17:16 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>No it hasn't, as its author has repeatedly admitted, followed by no change
in the name and advertizing - just excuses that it's not a validator in
"technical sense", as if "validation" were not, in the markup context, a
strictly and technically defined term.
And there are probably at least 8 people on the planet who use that
term the way you want them too.

You are playing ego one-upmanship games. You want everyone to think
you are superior because you use a term in a narrower way than
everyone else does.

You were not deceived. No one else was deceived. Albert had no intent
at deception. Since nobody was deceived there were no victims. There
was no harm. There was no crime. You are just being a bitchy old
queen with nothing better to do than put others down.

YOU are the one attempting to deceive.. You tried to trick me into
thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with the product,
when it turned out its only crime was using a word you think you have
exclusive rights to.

You are vicious old bat.

--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 15 '07 #26
Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:34:34 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@
123donotreply123.com>:
Not a false name. Ask 99.9% of people what they want when they want an HTML
validator.
With respect, that is beside the point. On most technical questions,
the majority of people don't understand the issues, don't know what
to ask for, and trust the "experts" to do the right thing for them.

For example, many people thing that Windows "registry cleaners" are a
good thing, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.

I don't know your product in particular, but to say that many people
are satisfied with it and it's been around a long while has *zero*
logical connection with whether it works right or does what it
promises. After all, many people are satisfied with Windows, and it's
been around a long while.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jun 15 '07 #27
Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:30:45 GMT from Roedy Green
<se*********@mindprod.com.invalid>:
would you care to elaborate? My complaint is excessive pickiness, but
it can be turned off.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Do you use CSE HTML Validator yourself? If so, then rather than
excessively picky it would seem to be insufficiently so.
http://validator.w3.org/ finds six markup errors on your home page.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jun 15 '07 #28
Roedy Green <se*********@mindprod.com.invalidwrites:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:07:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>>Vow... a commercial product, sold as an HTML validator for ten years, now
even includes a validator!!

Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying?

What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many
years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time.
It is odd then, that the site in your sig has quote a few syntax
errors -- all of which CSE HTML Validator seems to be quite happy
with.

Aside: quite a lot of sites of people cited in the testimonials page
for the product have markup errors.
It gives you very fine control of just how picky you want to be so you
can gradually migrate your site to ever stricter standards.
That seems, from the evidence of the sites of people who claim to use
it, to be its best feature. You can decide just how invalid you would
like your markup to be, without being bothered by being told about it.
http://mindprod.com
This contains <cseignore>...</cseignoretags. This invalid markup is
presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain
within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose?

--
Ben.
Jun 15 '07 #29
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html
For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell
Jun 15 '07 #30
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html

For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html
Yep, the only complains are the wearers discover that they have an
uncanny urge to migrate northward...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 15 '07 #31
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see
what people who have actually used it say:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html

For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see
what people who have actually used it say:
http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html
On two sites I maintain, there is a page of 'testimonials' or customer
comments. When I suggested to both clients that it would be a good idea
to post a negative comment or two, thus making the pages more
believable, both said "No way! Only *positive* comments!"

I know that at one of the sites, some negative comments were submitted
but not posted. Testimonial pages mean nothing to anybody.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 15 '07 #32

"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.ukwrote in message
news:87************@bsb.me.uk...
>>
What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many
years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time.

It is odd then, that the site in your sig has quote a few syntax
errors -- all of which CSE HTML Validator seems to be quite happy
with.
That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.

If someone is more concerned about validating their pages to the strict
technical specs than what real people see when they visit the site, then
they're one of the few! Most people prefer that real people be happy with
their sites rather than strict DTD based validators (which by the way, are
very limited in what they can check).
This contains <cseignore>...</cseignoretags. This invalid markup is
presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain
within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose?
No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".

Albert
Jun 15 '07 #33
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.comwrites:
"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.ukwrote in message
news:87************@bsb.me.uk...
<snip>
>This contains <cseignore>...</cseignoretags. This invalid markup is
presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain
within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose?

No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".
I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is
valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with
it". It thought it was clearer in the positive, but I messed up the
wording and it was very muddled. One adds invalid markup to allow
other invalid markup to be ignored (by the validator)? Or does one
sometimes add this invalid markup in order to get the validator to
ignore valid markup?

Either way, it seems a perverse choice for a "validator". If I were
designing a syntax for HTML pragmas like this, I would make them
comments (or maybe meta data if they were page wide).

--
Ben.
Jun 15 '07 #34
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>This contains <cseignore>...</cseignoretags. This invalid markup
is presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain
within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose?

No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".
And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells better that
way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes.

This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing
software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes the
document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness from a phoney
"validator".

To give instructions to software that is supposed to process HTML documents,
the adequate method would be to use SGML processing instructions or, since
they might confuse some wowsers, pseudocomments, as many programs use.

ObCSS: This implies that it might be a useful to use, in a user style sheet
for a browser that has good CSS support, bogosity indicators like the
following:

cseignore { color: red; background: white; }
cseignore:before { content:
" Bogus code, symptom of using CSE HTML \201c Validator\201d : ";
font-style: italic; }
cseignore:after { content: " (End of bogus code.) ";
font-style: italic; }
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 15 '07 #35
On 2007-06-15, Albert Wiersch <do********@123donotreply123.comwrote:
>
"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.ukwrote in message
news:87************@bsb.me.uk...
>>>
What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many
years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time.

It is odd then, that the site in your sig has quote a few syntax
errors -- all of which CSE HTML Validator seems to be quite happy
with.

That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.
Surely you can't believe that. For most web pages that anyone looks at
at all the great majority will not look at the HTML source but at the
rendered output in some browser.

More predictable results are guaranteed if the HTML and CSS are valid
since browsers are not real people but computer programs for which
technical issues are very important.

A lint program like your product might be another useful tool for
producing good machine-readable code.
Jun 15 '07 #36

"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.ukwrote in message
news:87************@bsb.me.uk...
>
I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is
valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with
it". It thought it was clearer in the positive, but I messed up the
wording and it was very muddled. One adds invalid markup to allow
other invalid markup to be ignored (by the validator)? Or does one
sometimes add this invalid markup in order to get the validator to
ignore valid markup?
This markup works fine when checking with CSE HTML Validator and such tags
do not affect user agents as they are simply ignored.
Either way, it seems a perverse choice for a "validator". If I were
designing a syntax for HTML pragmas like this, I would make them
comments (or maybe meta data if they were page wide).
There is also a comment that does the same thing. It was added in a recent
update to be more standards compliant and address the "perverseness" of a
proprietary "cseignore" tag.

Albert
Jun 15 '07 #37

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:EB*********************@reader1.news.saunalah ti.fi...
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>>
No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".

And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells better that
way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes.
No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this misinformation.
This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing
software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes the
document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness from a
phoney "validator".
This has been addressed and comments can now be used for those who prefer
them to the proprietary tag.

Albert
Jun 15 '07 #38

"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote in message
news:sl*********************@bowser.marioworld...
On 2007-06-15, Albert Wiersch <do********@123donotreply123.comwrote:
>>
That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.

Surely you can't believe that. For most web pages that anyone looks at
at all the great majority will not look at the HTML source but at the
rendered output in some browser.
Yes... which is why it is often best to use a program that is designed to
try to find issues that are most likely to cause problems with the rendered
output instead of a strict DTD based validator that only cares about strict
conformance.
More predictable results are guaranteed if the HTML and CSS are valid
since browsers are not real people but computer programs for which
technical issues are very important.
Have you seen the sample page here that is completely "valid" by W3C
standards but contains many problems? Using only strict DTD based validation
is not as useful in finding problems as many people make it out to be.
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html
A lint program like your product might be another useful tool for
producing good machine-readable code.
Yes, that is what it is designed to do. To take the best of validation and
linting and concentrate on the issues that make the most difference when a
page is rendered to a user. This includes checking document structure as
well as also checking spelling, CSS, accessibility, and even potential
search engine issues.

Albert
Jun 15 '07 #39
Albert Wiersch wrote:
That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that
concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical
issues that have little or no effect.
<lol!That's funny.

...doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is
validation if not technical? You should rename it to the

CSE HTML Non-Technical Real-World Pseudo-Validator
for People not Browsers

(Sorry that wouldn't fit on one line...)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 15 '07 #40
In article
<Pi******************************@s5b004.rrzn.un i-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <An***************@trashmail.netwrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html

For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html
Nice link to keep!

--
dorayme
Jun 16 '07 #41

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:oR*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
>That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that
concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical
issues that have little or no effect.

<lol!That's funny.

..doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is
validation if not technical?
Perhaps you didn't understand. It doesn't concern itself as much with issues
that are of little or no concern to real people being able to view HTML
while it concerns itself more with issues that are of concern to people
actually being able to view HTML. That's what *MOST* people care about.

Albert
Jun 16 '07 #42
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells
better that way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes.

No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this
misinformation.
No, you have not written anything that refutes my statement. You have just
presented excuses for lying. That's like selling potatoes as apples and then
presenting the excuse that although potatoes are "technically" not apples,
they are apples in a broader sense and what people really want when they ask
for apples, and besides called apples in many language (pommes de terre
etc.).
>This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing
software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes
the document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness
from a phoney "validator".

This has been addressed
No it hasn't. You gave no explanation to the madness. Of course, there is no
good explanation, but you didn't even try. (Admitting a gross mistake is out
of the question, I suppose.)
and comments can now be used for those who
prefer them to the proprietary tag.
That's what you say now. But even if it is true, and I don't care, your
phoney validator has already polluted web pages with the <cseignore>
madness, it keeps supporting it, and the very idea of introducing it in the
first place is a clear sign that you were not competent to write either a
validator or any other useful markup checker. In a student's exercise, it
would be an understandable mistake. In a commercial product, sold for years,
it's a symptom of serious incompetence.

And you still present this as if it were a matter of taste - "for those who
prefer". This reflects your incapability of distinguishing between matters
of taste and objective (or at at least well-defined) criteria - a
distinction that is most crucial when designing a markup or stylesheet
checker.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 16 '07 #43
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote:
>Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that
concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical
issues that have little or no effect.

<lol!That's funny.

..doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is
validation if not technical?

Perhaps you didn't understand.
Perhaps I did.
It doesn't concern itself as much with issues that are of little or no
concern to real people being able to view HTML while it concerns
itself more with issues that are of concern to people actually being
able to view HTML.
You must be a fine dancer, Albert. Your skills of dancing around the
real issue are very good.
That's what *MOST* people care about.
...only your suc^W customers.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 16 '07 #44
Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:07:45 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@
123donotreply123.com>:
That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.
That's a false dichotomy.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jun 16 '07 #45
Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:07:45 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@
123donotreply123.com>:
That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.

If someone is more concerned about validating their pages to the strict
technical specs than what real people see when they visit the site, then
they're one of the few! Most people prefer that real people be happy with
their sites rather than strict DTD based validators (which by the way, are
very limited in what they can check).
So DTD validators are both too strict and too loose. Uh-huh.

As I said earlier, what "most people are happy with" is irrelevant
because most people don't understand the issues and assume that
software writers do.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jun 16 '07 #46
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Stan Brown wrote:
So DTD validators are both too strict and too loose. Uh-huh.
I am not sure I understand this discussion. As it is obvious that there
are valid documents that do not work and that there are invalid documents
that do work (but then by mere chance), it should be in the interest of
everybody to ensure that his product is valid *and* works, no matter how
many tools he uses for the prupose as long as they fit at least one of the
purposes.

Validity has preference because of the parenthesis in the last sentence,
but I would not object to a tool that points out potential errors that do
not consist in a violation of the DTD. I can then decide whether it is
indeed an error. However, if such a tool does not find all errors (DTD
violations) or does not distinguish between errors and warnings, it must
not be called a "validator".

--
Helmut Richter
Jun 16 '07 #47
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Perhaps you didn't understand. It doesn't concern itself as much with issues
that are of little or no concern to real people being able to view HTML
while it concerns itself more with issues that are of concern to people
actually being able to view HTML. That's what *MOST* people care about.
A code-monkey can hack together bits to make a real gem example of tag
soup, that somehow many current UAs can manage to display as a webpage,
but in know way can be considered a valid HTML document. However relying
on the tolerance of *current UAs* to handle such garbage is not a
dependable strategy. Who is to say what browser will be 10 years from
now. I'll put my money on valid markup today being supported tomorrow
over invalid markup.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 16 '07 #48
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.comwrites:
"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.ukwrote in message
news:87************@bsb.me.uk...
>>
I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is
valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with
it". It thought it was clearer in the positive, but I messed up the
wording and it was very muddled. One adds invalid markup to allow
other invalid markup to be ignored (by the validator)? Or does one
sometimes add this invalid markup in order to get the validator to
ignore valid markup?

This markup works fine when checking with CSE HTML Validator and such tags
do not affect user agents as they are simply ignored.
>Either way, it seems a perverse choice for a "validator". If I were
designing a syntax for HTML pragmas like this, I would make them
comments (or maybe meta data if they were page wide).

There is also a comment that does the same thing. It was added in a recent
update to be more standards compliant and address the "perverseness" of a
proprietary "cseignore" tag.
Your putting "perverseness" in quotes suggests that you consider
introducing invalid markup to assist a validator to be *not* perverse.
This is such a perverse design that it makes me suspicious of the
software as a whole. Fortunately I can't run it.

--
Ben.
Jun 16 '07 #49

"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:ec4ba$4673f753$40cba7a8
>
A code-monkey can hack together bits to make a real gem example of tag
soup, that somehow many current UAs can manage to display as a webpage,
but in know way can be considered a valid HTML document. However relying
on the tolerance of *current UAs* to handle such garbage is not a
dependable strategy. Who is to say what browser will be 10 years from now.
I'll put my money on valid markup today being supported tomorrow over
invalid markup.
Which is no problem with CSE HTML Validator if you want to write only
strictly technically correct markup. You can use ONLY the DTD based
validator or you can use CSE HTML Validator's own validator (to find
problems missed by the DTD validator) as well as the DTD based validator.

It's up to the author/developer as it should be.

Albert
Jun 16 '07 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

reply views Thread by ACM SIGSOFT 2004 Publicity Chair | last post: by
reply views Thread by Dana Morris | last post: by
reply views Thread by SoftComplete Development | last post: by
reply views Thread by engnr.maria | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.