468,525 Members | 2,181 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,525 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
158 4553

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:Vu********************@reader1.news.saunalaht i.fi...
>>
No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this
misinformation.

No, you have not written anything that refutes my statement.
Yes I have but to continue this discussion is a waste of time.
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.
Actually, it can be very useful and practical, especially for those who are
mostly concerned with pages that are seen by people instead of whether they
are technically valid in every way. Besides, if an author doesn't like
proprietary tags, then they don't have to use them.

Since you care so much about technically validity, then fine. It's your
choice... but to continually degrade and bash those who don't think like you
is inappropriate. Who are you to demand how web developers write their pages
and whether they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically
correct?

Albert
Jun 16 '07 #51

"Albert Wiersch" <no****@nospam.nospamwrote in message
>
Who are you to demand how web developers write their pages and whether
they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically correct?
By technically correct I mean in the strictest technical sense based only on
DTDs.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #52
Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:51:37 -0500 from Albert Wiersch
<no****@nospam.nospam>:
Actually, it can be very useful and practical, especially for those who are
mostly concerned with pages that are seen by people instead of whether they
are technically valid in every way.
Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?

I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
should be both.

--
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 17 '07 #53
Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:51:37 -0500 from Albert Wiersch
<no****@nospam.nospam>:
to demand how web developers write their pages
and whether they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically
correct?
And yet another false dichotomy.

Being correct *is* practical. I don't know why you keep repeating
"technically correct" as though there were some other way to be
correct. Are you trying to turn that into a term of denigration, like
"politically correct"?

--
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 17 '07 #54

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>
And yet another false dichotomy.

Being correct *is* practical. I don't know why you keep repeating
"technically correct" as though there were some other way to be
correct. Are you trying to turn that into a term of denigration, like
"politically correct"?
I have worked with many people who have different needs and requirements. It
is not always reasonably possible to be strictly "technically correct". In a
perfect world yes, but we don't live in one.

What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is
reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical
conformance, which, in many cases, is a waste of time when it doesn't bring
any practical benefit.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #55

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>
Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?

I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
should be both.
Sometimes it can be both, sometimes it can't (or it's not pratical).

Real user agents don't use SGML parsers, so it's often a waste of time to
concern oneself with every technical detail while neglecting other, often
more important, issues.

Using a program like CSE HTML Validator that is designed to be more
practical is typically the wiser choice. I'd rather be alerted to potential
issues that can cause problems for visitors than only concern myself with
the limited number of technical problems that can be caught by using only a
DTD based validator.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #56
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?

I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
should be both.

Sometimes it can be both, sometimes it can't (or it's not pratical).

Real user agents don't use SGML parsers, so it's often a waste of time to
concern oneself with every technical detail while neglecting other, often
more important, issues.

Using a program like CSE HTML Validator that is designed to be more
practical is typically the wiser choice. I'd rather be alerted to potential
issues that can cause problems for visitors than only concern myself with
the limited number of technical problems that can be caught by using only a
DTD based validator.

Albert

I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.

Then analyze the differences. Test the pages in multiple browsers and,
if you can, on different OS platforms.

Then let's see what ensues. Otherwise, it's an intellectual (or
marketing) cluster-fuck and that has no end nor profit for anyone.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jun 17 '07 #57
On 2007-06-17, Ed Mullen wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
>"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.n et...
>>Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?

I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
should be both.

Sometimes it can be both, sometimes it can't (or it's not pratical).

Real user agents don't use SGML parsers, so it's often a waste of time to
concern oneself with every technical detail while neglecting other, often
more important, issues.

Using a program like CSE HTML Validator that is designed to be more
practical is typically the wiser choice. I'd rather be alerted to potential
issues that can cause problems for visitors than only concern myself with
the limited number of technical problems that can be caught by using only a
DTD based validator.

I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>:

http://validator.w3.org/:
Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/:
Errors reported:
The end tag for "dd" (opened in line 74) should appear
before the end tag for "dl" (nesting error).

The HTML 4.01 specification says:
Start tag: required, End tag: optional

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 17 '07 #58

"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.netwrote in message
news:PK******************************@comcast.com. ..
>
I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.
Or, perhaps a better comparison is for one to download the free trial
version of CSE HTML Validator and try it on their own site and see if it
comes up with anything useful that the w3.org validator doesn't say anything
about.

And ignore any "reports" from people who just want to bash the program
because they don't like the name. I'm all up for having a fruitful and fair
discussion about the benefits and downsides to different ways to check a
site.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #59
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.netwrote in message
news:PK******************************@comcast.com. ..
>>
I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.

Or, perhaps a better comparison is for one to download the free trial
version of CSE HTML Validator and try it on their own site and see if it
comes up with anything useful that the w3.org validator doesn't say anything
about.
Do you have a version I can run? I don't do Windows.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 17 '07 #60
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:

[....]
What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is
reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical
conformance, which, in many cases, is a waste of time when it doesn't bring
any practical benefit.
Now that is a slightly scary statement. Does the expression "Near
enough is good enough" effectively paraphrase this?

Andrew

--
Andrew's Corner
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/homer.html

Jun 17 '07 #61
In article <f5**********@news-01.bur.connect.com.au>,
andrew <no****@andrew.invalidwrote:
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:

[....]
What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is
reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical
conformance, which, in many cases, is a waste of time when it doesn't bring
any practical benefit.

Now that is a slightly scary statement. Does the expression "Near
enough is good enough" effectively paraphrase this?
What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your
paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all
manner of things, and rightly so. It is a simple nonsense to
suppose that a lack of perfection in something is necessarily a
bad or scary thing. I assume that JK and others are getting stuck
into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical
benefits...

--
dorayme
Jun 17 '07 #62
On 2007-06-17, dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
In article <f5**********@news-01.bur.connect.com.au>,
andrew <no****@andrew.invalidwrote:
>On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:

[....]
What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is
reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical
conformance, which, in many cases, is a waste of time when it doesn't bring
any practical benefit.

Now that is a slightly scary statement. Does the expression "Near
enough is good enough" effectively paraphrase this?

What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your
paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all
manner of things, and rightly so. It is a simple nonsense to
suppose that a lack of perfection in something is necessarily a
bad or scary thing. I assume that JK and others are getting stuck
into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical
benefits...
You are right that a line has to be drawn but the question is where. It
seems surprising to me that an HTML lint tool should not be at least a
proper validator plus some extra helpful warnings. Most tools of that
kind have "warning levels" to adjust the nannyishness. You'd think HTML
validity would be the most basic level.

Although AW's tool probably is quite useful to some people there are a
lot of "bogosity indicators": it has a misleading name; it's horrible
non-free shrink-wrapped Windows-only software with a GUI where stdout
and stderr would have served better; and Chris Johnson very quickly
found a bug in its HTML parser.
Jun 17 '07 #63
In article <sl*********************@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
On 2007-06-17, dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
In article <f5**********@news-01.bur.connect.com.au>,
andrew <no****@andrew.invalidwrote:
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:

[....]

What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is
reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical
conformance,

Now that is a slightly scary statement. Does the expression "Near
enough is good enough" effectively paraphrase this?
What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your
paraphrase.
...

... You'd think HTML validity would be the most basic level.
You would think so. I agree. But how is it really to be judged?
Forget the commercial aspects, the claims for it, the
endorsements. A real question is does it help people make better
websites than they would without it? Perhaps these are the people
who are put off by the starker pronouncements from the strict
validators? It is very hard to judge.

Most of us around here kind of like _strict_. But most of the
internet is anything but. There seems to me a place for
entrepreneurial offerings that make this world a bit better, even
if opportunities are missed to make it even better.

--
dorayme
Jun 17 '07 #64

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3i************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>:

http://validator.w3.org/:
Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/:
Errors reported:
The end tag for "dd" (opened in line 74) should appear
before the end tag for "dl" (nesting error).

The HTML 4.01 specification says:
Start tag: required, End tag: optional
Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better
structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #65

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1o************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>
Do you have a version I can run? I don't do Windows.
Sorry, we only have a Windows version. We do have an online version based on
the lite edition here:
http://onlinewebcheck.com/

But the lite edition is not as thorough and doesn't check spelling,
accessibility, CSS, and links.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #66

"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote in message
news:sl*********************@bowser.marioworld...
>
You are right that a line has to be drawn but the question is where. It
seems surprising to me that an HTML lint tool should not be at least a
proper validator plus some extra helpful warnings. Most tools of that
kind have "warning levels" to adjust the nannyishness. You'd think HTML
validity would be the most basic level.
Technical "validity" is not that great a thing to achieve in practicality.
CSE HTML Validator checks for many important things (many things that DTD
validators miss), is greatly configurable (like different "warning levels"),
and you can even use the DTD validator if you care to be strictly correct,
but hardly anyone does based on the feedback and questions I get about it.
Although AW's tool probably is quite useful to some people there are a
lot of "bogosity indicators": it has a misleading name; it's horrible
non-free shrink-wrapped Windows-only software with a GUI where stdout
and stderr would have served better; and Chris Johnson very quickly
found a bug in its HTML parser.
So it's so "horrible" because why exactly? You don't like the GUI? Did you
know it comes with a command line processor? I think you are talking about
things you don't know about.

As for the "parser bug", it's not a bug. It's designed to help people write
better HTML by closing many of their optional tags.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #67

"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in message
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>
What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your
paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all
manner of things, and rightly so. It is a simple nonsense to
suppose that a lack of perfection in something is necessarily a
bad or scary thing. I assume that JK and others are getting stuck
into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical
benefits...
I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD validator) world
always conform 100% to driving laws when driving by having never gone over
the speed limit and by never doing a rolling "stop" where a full stop is
technically required.

And when cooking, is it important to follow the instructions 100%, making
sure that it cooks or bakes for the exact amount of time specified, and that
all the ingrediants are measured 100% accurately? I don't think it matters
much. In many cases, recipes can be improved by changing the recipe to make
it better.

Have the posters who want "perfect" HTML documents always spell checked and
grammar checked their documents for "conformance" before posting them? I
doubt it. I bet they would agree that it would be practical to spell and
grammar check every single message the send or post.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #68
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:
>
"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote in message
news:sl*********************@bowser.marioworld...
>>
You are right that a line has to be drawn but the question is where. It
seems surprising to me that an HTML lint tool should not be at least a
proper validator plus some extra helpful warnings. Most tools of that
kind have "warning levels" to adjust the nannyishness. You'd think HTML
validity would be the most basic level.

Technical "validity" is not that great a thing to achieve in practicality.
CSE HTML Validator checks for many important things (many things that DTD
validators miss), is greatly configurable (like different "warning levels"),
and you can even use the DTD validator if you care to be strictly correct,
but hardly anyone does based on the feedback and questions I get about it.
>Although AW's tool probably is quite useful to some people there are a
lot of "bogosity indicators": it has a misleading name; it's horrible
non-free shrink-wrapped Windows-only software with a GUI where stdout
and stderr would have served better; and Chris Johnson very quickly
found a bug in its HTML parser.

So it's so "horrible" because why exactly?
Source code is not provided, documentation wastes far too much space
telling you "it's great" rather than what it actually does, although the
"Program Limitations" page is quite revealing. It's full of stupid
features like the "Tools", the "most powerful" of which, the template
tool, does the job of four lines of Perl or something similar.

Now I don't say this product is completely useless to everyone. I tried
it on a couple of pages and the warning messages it produced were fairly
user-friendly and informative (although no more so than those produced
by tidy) and I even think the tools might be quite useful to a rank
novice. But I'd rather novices learned about DTDs and real validators,
and how to use decent editors and how to think for themselves, because
none of that is really all that difficult if it's explained well, than
to get sidetracked by products like this.
You don't like the GUI?
No.
Did you know it comes with a command line processor?
No.
I think you are talking about things you don't know about.
I know a bogosity indicator when I see one.
As for the "parser bug", it's not a bug. It's designed to help people
write better HTML by closing many of their optional tags.
Rubbish. If that were case it would have said "<dt>: warning end tag is
optional and you've left it off: I hope you know what you're doing" or
words to that effect.
Jun 17 '07 #69
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/:
Errors reported:
The end tag for "dd" (opened in line 74) should appear
before the end tag for "dl" (nesting error).

The HTML 4.01 specification says:
Start tag: required, End tag: optional

Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better
structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional.
It claims that there is an _error_ when there is no violation of a
specification. It even claims that it is a nesting error, apparently because
the person who wrote the "CSE HTML Validator" has little understanding of
markup.

Thus, this is an example of its bogosity, not usefulness.

(Anyone who wants to make </ddobligatory can use a DTD that says so - and
use a validator, not a product that is incorrectly sold as a validator and
gives wrong reports.)

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

Jun 17 '07 #70
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3i************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>:

http://validator.w3.org/:
Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/:
Errors reported:
The end tag for "dd" (opened in line 74) should appear
before the end tag for "dl" (nesting error).

The HTML 4.01 specification says:
Start tag: required, End tag: optional

Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better
structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional.
In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong
with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 17 '07 #71

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message news:H3fdi.179717
>
It claims that there is an _error_ when there is no violation of a
specification.
Yes, it is a violation of CSE HTML Validator's specification.

Like I said before, if you just want to validate per the DTD and be limited
to it, then don't use CSE HTML Validator's validator engine which goes
beyond the DTD and performs many more checks. Use the included DTD validator
or some other free DTD validator.
It even claims that it is a nesting error, apparently because the person
who wrote the "CSE HTML Validator" has little understanding of markup.
Sorry, just more bashing.
(Anyone who wants to make </ddobligatory can use a DTD that says so -
and use a validator, not a product that is incorrectly sold as a validator
and gives wrong reports.)
Sure, one can mess with creating their own DTD for this issue, but why mess
with custom DTDs when one can use CSE HTML Validator and get not only this,
but many more checks which can't be expressed in a DTD? But go ahead and
just use the DTD validators as that's all you seem to care about and leave
the other tools to the people who actually understand the benefit from them.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #72

"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote in message
news:sl*********************@bowser.marioworld...
>>
So it's so "horrible" because why exactly?

Source code is not provided
I don't see that as horrible but of course you're entitled to your opinion.
documentation wastes far too much space
telling you "it's great" rather than what it actually does
You must have only read one or two pages because most of the documentation
explains how to use the program and what the options do.
It's full of stupid
features like the "Tools", the "most powerful" of which, the template
tool, does the job of four lines of Perl or something similar.
What four lines of Perl can do the same thing? I don't think so. I'll be
very impressed if you can write the template tool in 4 typical Perl lines
(maybe you could if the lines are really, really, really long!). Anyway, the
tools are simple utilities that people find useful and not really the
subject of this discussion.
Now I don't say this product is completely useless to everyone. I tried
it on a couple of pages and the warning messages it produced were fairly
user-friendly and informative (although no more so than those produced
by tidy) and I even think the tools might be quite useful to a rank
novice.
Great, I'm glad you see some use.
But I'd rather novices learned about DTDs and real validators,
and how to use decent editors and how to think for themselves, because
none of that is really all that difficult if it's explained well, than
to get sidetracked by products like this.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion but I think CSE HTML Validator is an
excellent HTML/CSS learning tool. In fact, some instructors use it to teach
HTML to their students and find it very useful. Besides, DTDs and real
validators aren't that useful in practice, at least for HTML.
>As for the "parser bug", it's not a bug. It's designed to help people
write better HTML by closing many of their optional tags.

Rubbish. If that were case it would have said "<dt>: warning end tag is
optional and you've left it off: I hope you know what you're doing" or
words to that effect.
Not rubbish. Just because it doesn't display your message doesn't mean what
I said was rubbish.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #73

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:ft************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>
In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong
with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker.
It's not a DTD based validator, but it does include one.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #74
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:ft************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>>
In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong
with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker.

It's not a DTD based validator,
How else would you define valid?

The so-called errors that I've seen it produce have nothing to do
with validity.
but it does include one.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 17 '07 #75

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:ef************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>>
It's not a DTD based validator,

How else would you define valid?
As CSE HTML Validator "valid" which means it passes the CSE HTML Validator
tests. This checks for some of the same and some different things than a DTD
based validator.
The so-called errors that I've seen it produce have nothing to do
with validity.
As stated before, there's more than one definition of "valid".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid

If you want only the strict technical HTML definition, then a DTD based
validator is required. Otherwise not.

Albert
Jun 17 '07 #76
On 2007-06-17, Chris F.A. Johnson <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3i************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>>>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>:

http://validator.w3.org/:
Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/:
Errors reported:
The end tag for "dd" (opened in line 74) should appear
before the end tag for "dl" (nesting error).

The HTML 4.01 specification says:
Start tag: required, End tag: optional

Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better
structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional.

In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong
with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker.
It is a style checker, but even an HTML style checker should have a
working HTML parser.
Jun 17 '07 #77
In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:
"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in message
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...

What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your
paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all
manner of things, and rightly so. It is a simple nonsense to
suppose that a lack of perfection in something is necessarily a
bad or scary thing. I assume that JK and others are getting stuck
into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical
benefits...

I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD validator) world
always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...
Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.
Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
a necessary condition (or close to it).

--
dorayme
Jun 17 '07 #78
Scripsit dorayme:
In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:
- -
>I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD
validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...

Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.
Please don't misrepresent the views of Albert Wiersch. He seems to be quite
capable of misrepresenting facts (as well as other people's views) without
any help.

In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation", which is a
rather foolish concept, comparable to "perfect existence" and "complete
death", except that death isn't actually as rigorously defined as markup
validation (and some philosophers argue about existence too).

He wrote something that lacks grammatical continuity and any meaning - he is
just bashing people who have revealed that "CSE HTML Validator" is a fake.
Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
a necessary condition (or close to it).
I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and
it would be rather irrelevant. The point is, as Albert Wiersch has recently
confirmed in a message of his, that the "CSE HTML Validator" operates on
what Albert Wiersch regards as "valid" or "correct", claiming that anything
deviating from that view (which has not been presented as any systematic
document, just implicitly as "error messages" and other messages that the
"CSE HTML Validator" spits out) is an "error".

I might pay attention even to subjective messages from an HTML or CSS
checker, with "subjective" defined as "just what the author of the checker
thinks is right", if I had reasons to believe that the author of the checker
is a competent and respectable person. Surely the condition includes ability
and willingness to distinguish between subjective views and issues like
validity and conformance to authoritative specifications or published drafts
based on some consensus.

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

Jun 18 '07 #79
On 2007-06-18, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit dorayme:
>In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:
- -
>>I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD
validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...

Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.

Please don't misrepresent the views of Albert Wiersch. He seems to be quite
capable of misrepresenting facts (as well as other people's views) without
any help.

In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation", which is a
rather foolish concept, comparable to "perfect existence" and "complete
death", except that death isn't actually as rigorously defined as markup
validation (and some philosophers argue about existence too).

He wrote something that lacks grammatical continuity and any meaning - he is
just bashing people who have revealed that "CSE HTML Validator" is a fake.
>Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
a necessary condition (or close to it).

I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and
it would be rather irrelevant.
I presented that view.

Perhaps it is irrelevant-- you could always run a validator first and
then run the "CSE HTML Validator" afterwards to check for subjective
messages. If you're lucky and it groks your valid HTML you might get
some additional information.
The point is, as Albert Wiersch has recently confirmed in a message of
his, that the "CSE HTML Validator" operates on what Albert Wiersch
regards as "valid" or "correct", claiming that anything deviating from
that view (which has not been presented as any systematic document,
just implicitly as "error messages" and other messages that the "CSE
HTML Validator" spits out) is an "error".

I might pay attention even to subjective messages from an HTML or CSS
checker, with "subjective" defined as "just what the author of the checker
thinks is right", if I had reasons to believe that the author of the checker
is a competent and respectable person. Surely the condition includes ability
and willingness to distinguish between subjective views and issues like
validity and conformance to authoritative specifications or published drafts
based on some consensus.
These are good points. It might be an idea for AW to post the complete
list of things that "CSE Validator" matches on and the subjective
messages it produces for each one. Then there is a chance people will
make useful comments.
Jun 18 '07 #80
In article <G0********************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit dorayme:
In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:
- -
I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD
validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...
Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.

Please don't misrepresent the views of Albert Wiersch. He seems to be quite
capable of misrepresenting facts (as well as other people's views) without
any help.

In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation",
That was an unfortunate phrase of mine. I should have said what I
meant more accurately and that is that best he should not
exaggerate, his critics being far from thinking that perfect html
is html which passes DTD Validator tests.
Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
a necessary condition (or close to it).

I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and
it would be rather irrelevant.
I meant only that his critics would more likely consider it a
necessary rather than a sufficient condition to use a DTD
Validator, He seemed to me to be implying otherwise and conjuring
a straw man up.

Previously I did present a view that if he was was able to help
various types of authors (ones that would be easily demoralised
by stricter attention) make better sites, then perhaps he is
supplying a not altogether bad service. I realise you will not be
pleased with this but it an impression I have.

While his product is not for the sorts of people who continue to
lurk about here, it is impossible to judge that it is, on
balance, a bad thing that he should operate freely and people
take up his product. It looks to me very different to snake oil.
It looks to me to be even better than homeopathic medicine.
Perhaps it might be at the level of naturopathy or even
chiropractice (all of these "disciplines" I have learnt not to
touch with a barge pole. But it would be bold indeed to say they
have not helped a great many people)

--
dorayme
Jun 18 '07 #81

"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote in message
news:sl*********************@bowser.marioworld...
>
These are good points. It might be an idea for AW to post the complete
list of things that "CSE Validator" matches on and the subjective
messages it produces for each one. Then there is a chance people will
make useful comments.
I don't have such a complete list, but some things that CSE HTML Validator
checks for can be determined from the information from these links:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/upgrade.html
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...scriptions.htm

Some of the messages are turned off by default because they aren't as useful
as they were in the past (when people used much older browsers).

As always, I'm open to constructive critism and suggestion to make the
program better.

By the way, that's one of the reasons the program is so useful. CSE HTML
Validator is based on many suggestions and comments from web developers, as
well as messages, questions, and useful information posted to this group and
on the Internet.

Albert
Jun 18 '07 #82

"Albert Wiersch" <no****@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...
>
By the way, that's one of the reasons the program is so useful. CSE HTML
Validator is based on many suggestions and comments from web developers,
as well as messages, questions, and useful information posted to this
group and on the Internet.
I forgot to add to the above that it is not simply based on what I come up
with as the misinformers would like people to believe. I don't make this
stuff up nor do I simply "invent" it. I go out and find it and then put it
into a program in a way that makes it useful to web developers.

Albert
Jun 18 '07 #83
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
I forgot to add to the above that it is not simply based on what I
come up with
Do you mean that it is not "technically" just your compilation of what you
regard as correct? (As usual, without saying what it really is then.)
I don't make this stuff up nor do I simply "invent" it. I go out and
find it and then put it into a program in a way that makes it useful
to web developers.
That means you make it up, making yourself the judge of correctness, making
the phoney "validator" call valid pages erroneous.

Nobody really thought that you invented all of it out of thin air. Surely
your subjective opinions are mostly copies (largely distorted copies) of
other people's subjective opinions or even published specifications. The
point is that the process is not reliable and transparent, and you really
have not given the impression of a noteworthy expert in markup or CSS
issues, so using a "validator" that is really based on your subjective
evaluation is really foolish. Too bad most of the victims cannot see the
irony.

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

Jun 18 '07 #84

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:pZ*********************@reader1.news.saunalah ti.fi...
>
That means you make it up, making yourself the judge of correctness,
making the phoney "validator" call valid pages erroneous.
Like I said, I don't make up this stuff. I get it from other sources.

Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly
declare pages "valid". You might know this if you actually used the product
you are bashing mainly because you don't like the name.

CSE HTML Validator simply finds potential issues and rates them on the
perceived seriousness (error, warning, etc.) based on current web standards,
and real-world issues. Again, much more useful than something limited to
only DTD based checking.

Also, if you would ever understand that there is more than one strict
definition of "valid", then things might make more sense and you'd
understand why CSE HTML Validator works the way it does.

Albert
Jun 18 '07 #85
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly
declare pages "valid".
So now it's a validator that doesn't tell whether a page is valid or not.
You might know this if you actually used the
product you are bashing mainly because you don't like the name.
I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a
validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only tells
what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable expert.

Anything you have written ever since (all you have written in c.i.w.a.*
groups has been advertizing your product in various ways) has confirmed the
impression. The intentional lie in the name is your choice - your way of
making money, and I don't really like it, but it's your continued marketing
under a false name that makes it a lie, not my like or dislike.

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

Jun 18 '07 #86
Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
with CSE HTML Validator
You can use ONLY the DTD based validator
Seems kinda pointless to spend money on something I already get for free
at W3C.

--
Berg
Jun 18 '07 #87

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:JI*******************@reader1.news.saunalahti .fi...
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly
declare pages "valid".

So now it's a validator that doesn't tell whether a page is valid or not.
Most people care about fixing problems, not whether a page is declared
technically valid or not.

If you're so concerned about a page being declared technically valid,
there's always the DTD validator that you can use that is included in CSE
HTML Validator.
I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a
validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only
tells what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable
expert.
This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. You might think
it's crap, but the thousands of people who use it must not think it's crap.
Being in business for over ten years selling the same program should speak
for itself. If CSE HTML Validator wasn't useful, then it wouldn't be around
any longer.

Besides, if you had really tested it to any useful degree, then you would
not have made the false statements that you did about it.

Albert
Jun 18 '07 #88
"Bergamot" <be******@visi.comwrote in message
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
>
Seems kinda pointless to spend money on something I already get for free
at W3C.
Even if you are only using the DTD validator, there are still many features
that make it much more productive than using the W3C validator, like the
built-in editor that integrates with the validation results, the ability to
validate offline (faster and more reliable), the Batch Wizard to crawl
sites, the integrated web browser to validate as you browse the web, etc.
You can't get all that for free from the W3C.

Albert
Jun 18 '07 #89
On 2007-06-18, Albert Wiersch <do********@123donotreply123.comwrote:
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
[...]
>I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a
validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only
tells what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable
expert.

This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. You might think
it's crap, but the thousands of people who use it must not think it's crap.
Being in business for over ten years selling the same program should speak
for itself. If CSE HTML Validator wasn't useful, then it wouldn't be around
any longer.
You remind me of the young Bill Gates.
Jun 18 '07 #90
Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:15:13 -0500 from Bergamot <be******@visi.com>:
Albert Wiersch wrote:

with CSE HTML Validator
You can use ONLY the DTD based validator

Seems kinda pointless to spend money on something I already get for free
at W3C.
And even more pointless to spend money on something that is
*inferior* to what you get for free at W3C. At least there you can
actually tell whether a page is valid or not. :-)

--
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 19 '07 #91

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>
And even more pointless to spend money on something that is
*inferior* to what you get for free at W3C. At least there you can
actually tell whether a page is valid or not. :-)
Actually, you can do the same thing and MUCH more in CSE HTML Validator. See
my previous messages.

Albert
Jun 19 '07 #92

"Albert Wiersch" <no****@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...
>
Actually, you can do the same thing and MUCH more in CSE HTML Validator.
See my previous messages.
Forgot to add:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

Which compares W3C vs CSE HTML Validator and why one might find it worth the
money since it finds so many more problems.

Albert
Jun 19 '07 #93
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
it finds so many more problems.
It's easy to find many more problems, if you can decide what is to be taken
as a problem. This is one of the key flaws in you phoney "validator". You
can always decide that mauve is the best color for a database and other
colors are a problem that you need to report, blowing horns and showing off,
with pompous statements about how many more problems your program finds.

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

Jun 19 '07 #94

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:l0*********************@reader1.news.saunalah ti.fi...
>
It's easy to find many more problems, if you can decide what is to be
taken as a problem. This is one of the key flaws in you phoney
"validator". You can always decide that mauve is the best color for a
database and other colors are a problem that you need to report, blowing
horns and showing off, with pompous statements about how many more
problems your program finds.
Well, if you'd take a look at the example of the problems listed here:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

then I think you would find out that it does more than generate errors
because it doesn't like the color one has chosen. These are real issues that
the vast majority of web developers would want to fix.

By similar logic, the W3C validator must be showing off when it lets someone
generate "junk" for pages and still calls it valid. This document is valid
according to the W3C:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...etterhtml.html

Albert
Jun 19 '07 #95
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

Well, if you'd take a look at the example of the problems listed here:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

then I think you would find out that it does more than generate errors
because it doesn't like the color one has chosen.
You're right: it also gives seriously misleading "error" messages that make
people waste their time.

For example, claiming <title>Untitled</titleto be an error is really
foolish - there's is infinite number of stupid title elements that people
use, and you pick up one of them and present this as great benefit. And
there's nothing wrong with using <title>Untitled</titleif you like to use
it in your document and know what you are doing. Not all HTML documents are
web pages, and not all web pages are serious.

Then you have "Missing meta description tag used by some search engines".
That was cool (though misguided) in about 1997 or so. Most authors know
better these days than waste their time writing meta descriptions, but your
fake error messages try to return them into such futility.

Those were your first examples. If that's what you do with HTML, I really
don't want to know what "error messages" your product issues about style
sheets.

(Oh I peeked... it claims that "ariel" is not a font name. That's foolish.
Anyone can design a font and give it that name. I wouldn't be surprised if
someone had done so. Calling it an error is simply wrong.)

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

Jun 19 '07 #96
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
Well, if you'd take a look at the example of the problems listed here:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html
It would be quite helpful if your tool could also detect

body { font-size: small }

and issue a warning. (Note "Subject:" and "Newsgroups:")
Inept authors tend to include such crap in their style sheets.
This is a nuisance to readers.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell
Jun 19 '07 #97


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:xd*********************@reader1.news.saunalah ti.fi...
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

You're right: it also gives seriously misleading "error" messages that
make people waste their time.

For example, claiming <title>Untitled</titleto be an error is really
foolish - there's is infinite number of stupid title elements that people
use, and you pick up one of them and present this as great benefit. And
there's nothing wrong with using <title>Untitled</titleif you like to
use it in your document and know what you are doing. Not all HTML
documents are web pages, and not all web pages are serious.
Where does it say anything about that being an error? That's a warning
message by default. And if someone doesn't want to check the title text,
then all they have to do is right-click on the message and disable that
check.

So tell me how many web developers do you think actually want to have
"Untitled" as a title? Answer: hardly any
Then you have "Missing meta description tag used by some search engines".
That was cool (though misguided) in about 1997 or so. Most authors know
better these days than waste their time writing meta descriptions, but
your fake error messages try to return them into such futility.
Again, that's not even an error message. It's not even a warning, it is just
an informational message. And just because you think it is a waste of time
doesn't mean that it is for everyone. Again, if someone thinks it a "waste
of time", then they can easily disable that check.

And if it is not useful, why does google use it? Simply search for "CSE HTML
Validator" and look at the listing and you'll see the meta description. If
google uses it, then you'd think some people might be interested in it.
(Oh I peeked... it claims that "ariel" is not a font name. That's foolish.
Anyone can design a font and give it that name. I wouldn't be surprised if
someone had done so. Calling it an error is simply wrong.)
Nope... not an error either. It's a warning by default. How many people do
you think create their own font name and call it "ariel"? I would guess less
than .001% of people deisgn their own font and call it ariel. Boy, you are
really stretching!

But again, if someone happened to design a font and call it that, they can
easily turn off that message.

Albert
Jun 19 '07 #98

"Andreas Prilop" <An***************@trashmail.netwrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@s5b004.rrzn .uni-hannover.de...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>Well, if you'd take a look at the example of the problems listed here:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

It would be quite helpful if your tool could also detect

body { font-size: small }

and issue a warning. (Note "Subject:" and "Newsgroups:")
Inept authors tend to include such crap in their style sheets.
This is a nuisance to readers.
Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings. I use that and it works
great for me in the browsers I've tried it with (IE, Firefox, Opera). What
exactly is the problem? You know if you want bigger text you can easily
increase the font size with most browsers?

Albert
Jun 19 '07 #99
On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
"Andreas Prilop" <An***************@trashmail.netwrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@s5b004.rrzn .uni-hannover.de...
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>Well, if you'd take a look at the example of the problems listed here:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

It would be quite helpful if your tool could also detect

body { font-size: small }

and issue a warning. (Note "Subject:" and "Newsgroups:")
Inept authors tend to include such crap in their style sheets.
This is a nuisance to readers.

Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings.
That's necessary to compensate for the many badly written sites on
the Web.
I use that and it works great for me in the browsers I've tried it
with (IE, Firefox, Opera). What exactly is the problem? You know if
you want bigger text you can easily increase the font size with most
browsers?
Any site that requires fiddling around with my browser to make it
legible is badly written.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 19 '07 #100

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
1 post views Thread by fmendoza | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.