By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,785 Members | 1,072 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,785 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Local server HTML validator

P: n/a
As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
local network.

I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
due to all the ASP code I use.

So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
195 Replies


P: n/a
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote:
I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org.
CSE is not a validator, despite it's name, it's a linter.
So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).


http://arealvalidator.com/

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote:
I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org.
CSE is not a validator, despite it's name, it's a linter.
So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).


http://arealvalidator.com/

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote:
where can I find a validator that validates like the one on W3.org?


At w3.org?

http://validator.w3.org/source/

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote:
where can I find a validator that validates like the one on W3.org?


At w3.org?

http://validator.w3.org/source/

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Spartanicus wrote...
I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org.


CSE is not a validator, despite it's name, it's a linter.


A linter? What's that?
So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).


http://arealvalidator.com/


Thanks. Testing it now, looks good so far. Except that I'm getting
more work. ;-)

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Spartanicus wrote...
I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org.


CSE is not a validator, despite it's name, it's a linter.


A linter? What's that?
So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).


http://arealvalidator.com/


Thanks. Testing it now, looks good so far. Except that I'm getting
more work. ;-)

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Brian wrote...
where can I find a validator that validates like the one on W3.org?


At w3.org?

http://validator.w3.org/source/


I already looked at that page, and half way down it my head started
spinning. This Friday I think I'll skip the beer, and just read this a
couple of times. ;-)

If it doesn't have a "download the ready to install here" button, I'm stuck. :-/

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Brian wrote...
where can I find a validator that validates like the one on W3.org?


At w3.org?

http://validator.w3.org/source/


I already looked at that page, and half way down it my head started
spinning. This Friday I think I'll skip the beer, and just read this a
couple of times. ;-)

If it doesn't have a "download the ready to install here" button, I'm stuck. :-/

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Torbjørn Pettersen <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote:
A linter? What's that?


There's an explanation in the FAQ:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/bas...ml#error-check
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the precipitate."
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Torbjørn Pettersen <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote:
A linter? What's that?


There's an explanation in the FAQ:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/bas...ml#error-check
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the precipitate."
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
> I already looked at that page, and half way down it my head started
spinning.


I know what you mean. The first time I installed w3c locally on my
server, I was pulling out hair. I didn't wanna go through the hassle
of installing on other intranet servers, so I just wrote my own PHP
based validator. Plus, in addition to XHTML/HTML I also wanted to
validate DocBook XML, so writing my own validator made more sense. And
it works fine, and much easier to install on new servers. :).

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
> I already looked at that page, and half way down it my head started
spinning.


I know what you mean. The first time I installed w3c locally on my
server, I was pulling out hair. I didn't wanna go through the hassle
of installing on other intranet servers, so I just wrote my own PHP
based validator. Plus, in addition to XHTML/HTML I also wanted to
validate DocBook XML, so writing my own validator made more sense. And
it works fine, and much easier to install on new servers. :).

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Saqib Ali wrote:
I just wrote my own PHP based validator. Plus, in addition to
XHTML/HTML


And is this released to the public? :-)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Saqib Ali wrote:
I just wrote my own PHP based validator. Plus, in addition to
XHTML/HTML


And is this released to the public? :-)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
In article <d2*************************@posting.google.com> ,
sa***@stonebeat.org (Saqib Ali) writes:
of installing on other intranet servers, so I just wrote my own PHP
based validator.
Isn't that just slightly revisionist? Nothing against your validator,
but that's not quite how you were describing your motivation at the time.
Plus, in addition to XHTML/HTML I also wanted to
validate DocBook XML, so writing my own validator made more sense. And
it works fine, and much easier to install on new servers. :).


Your validator, in common with other HTML validators, uses OpenSP,
which has known limitations with XML. mod_validator, from
<URL:http://apache.webthing.com/>, has the edge in terms of supporting
different markup types, though it's not packaged for simple-install.

But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
In article <d2*************************@posting.google.com> ,
sa***@stonebeat.org (Saqib Ali) writes:
of installing on other intranet servers, so I just wrote my own PHP
based validator.
Isn't that just slightly revisionist? Nothing against your validator,
but that's not quite how you were describing your motivation at the time.
Plus, in addition to XHTML/HTML I also wanted to
validate DocBook XML, so writing my own validator made more sense. And
it works fine, and much easier to install on new servers. :).


Your validator, in common with other HTML validators, uses OpenSP,
which has known limitations with XML. mod_validator, from
<URL:http://apache.webthing.com/>, has the edge in terms of supporting
different markup types, though it's not packaged for simple-install.

But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<10*************@corp.supernews.com>...
Saqib Ali wrote:
I just wrote my own PHP based validator. Plus, in addition to
XHTML/HTML


And is this released to the public? :-)


Here is the SourceForge webpage for the validator:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/validate/

The first release is coming soon.

You test-drive the validator @ http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<10*************@corp.supernews.com>...
Saqib Ali wrote:
I just wrote my own PHP based validator. Plus, in addition to
XHTML/HTML


And is this released to the public? :-)


Here is the SourceForge webpage for the validator:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/validate/

The first release is coming soon.

You test-drive the validator @ http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
> But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.


hmm, for desktop validator, I think OpenSP or XSLTproc is better
option. They both are free, easy-to-use and included with all Linux
distros. I think it is included with MacOS X as well. You can d/l it
for free for windows.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
> But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.


hmm, for desktop validator, I think OpenSP or XSLTproc is better
option. They both are free, easy-to-use and included with all Linux
distros. I think it is included with MacOS X as well. You can d/l it
for free for windows.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
> Isn't that just slightly revisionist? Nothing against your validator,
but that's not quite how you were describing your motivation at the time.


hmm. i m not sure what you mean by this. Originally I didn't intend to
make a validate DocBook XMl content, but the motivation was to create
a validator that is simple to install, in 2 steps.

1) Install OpenSP. (which is no longer required on Linux, since most
Linux distro come with OpenSP).
2) GZip the PHP files.

And start validating your (X)HTML.

Later on I decided to include DocBook XML, and also added the ability
to convert DocBook XML to HTML/PDF.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
> Isn't that just slightly revisionist? Nothing against your validator,
but that's not quite how you were describing your motivation at the time.


hmm. i m not sure what you mean by this. Originally I didn't intend to
make a validate DocBook XMl content, but the motivation was to create
a validator that is simple to install, in 2 steps.

1) Install OpenSP. (which is no longer required on Linux, since most
Linux distro come with OpenSP).
2) GZip the PHP files.

And start validating your (X)HTML.

Later on I decided to include DocBook XML, and also added the ability
to convert DocBook XML to HTML/PDF.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Nick Kew wrote:
for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one.


I don't know, I'd like to have a way to install a validator on my
localhost-only Apache (which I use to test my sites). That would allow
me to more quickly check my work. I use Windows. I could try to download
the w3c code, and get all the components, but I haven't made time for
that yet. But if something simpler were to come along... :-)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
Nick Kew wrote:
for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one.


I don't know, I'd like to have a way to install a validator on my
localhost-only Apache (which I use to test my sites). That would allow
me to more quickly check my work. I use Windows. I could try to download
the w3c code, and get all the components, but I haven't made time for
that yet. But if something simpler were to come along... :-)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a

CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so the
results won't be the same. You might find this interesting, though:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:40******@news.broadpark.no...
As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
local network.

I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
due to all the ASP code I use.

So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com

Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a

CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so the
results won't be the same. You might find this interesting, though:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:40******@news.broadpark.no...
As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
local network.

I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
due to all the ASP code I use.

So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Albert Wiersch wrote:
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
the results won't be the same. You might find this interesting,
though: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html


You might find this more interesting:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...eisbetter.html

Physician, heal thyself!

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Albert Wiersch wrote:
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
the results won't be the same. You might find this interesting,
though: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html


You might find this more interesting:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...eisbetter.html

Physician, heal thyself!

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote:
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
the results won't be the same.


As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is not a validator at all, and you
have read that and you have decided to keep advertizing it as a
validator. You have now reached a new level of bogosity with the babble
about "engine".

Validators do much less good than many people think and say. But surely a
commercial product that _has_ to be sold under a false name of a
validator is even less interesting.

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

Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote:
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
the results won't be the same.


As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is not a validator at all, and you
have read that and you have decided to keep advertizing it as a
validator. You have now reached a new level of bogosity with the babble
about "engine".

Validators do much less good than many people think and say. But surely a
commercial product that _has_ to be sold under a false name of a
validator is even less interesting.

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

Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
In article <d2**************************@posting.google.com >,
sa***@stonebeat.org (Saqib Ali) writes:
But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.
hmm, for desktop validator, I think OpenSP or XSLTproc is better
option.


Those are commandline tools. validator-lite is just a GTK-based GUI
frontend to OpenSP, that takes care of the complexities that make it
intimidating to many users. And it's GPL (free) and easy-to-use.
They both are free, easy-to-use and included with all Linux
distros.


I think a lot of people find OpenSP challenging. Managing the SGMLDECL,
catalogue files and lib is not a simple task even for the computer-
literate unless they are working from a package such as one of the
validator distributions.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
In article <d2**************************@posting.google.com >,
sa***@stonebeat.org (Saqib Ali) writes:
But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.
hmm, for desktop validator, I think OpenSP or XSLTproc is better
option.


Those are commandline tools. validator-lite is just a GTK-based GUI
frontend to OpenSP, that takes care of the complexities that make it
intimidating to many users. And it's GPL (free) and easy-to-use.
They both are free, easy-to-use and included with all Linux
distros.


I think a lot of people find OpenSP challenging. Managing the SGMLDECL,
catalogue files and lib is not a simple task even for the computer-
literate unless they are working from a package such as one of the
validator distributions.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes:
I don't know, I'd like to have a way to install a validator on my
localhost-only Apache (which I use to test my sites).
Fair enough - your choice.
I use Windows.
Compiling OpenSP for windows is not for the faint-hearted, though it's now
been done. Hmmm, now that I think about it, there's a project now at
sourcefirge to add a validation bar to MSIE using a locally-installed
OpenSP. Check Bjoern Hoehrmann's posts to www-validator over recent months.
I could try to download
the w3c code, and get all the components, but I haven't made time for
that yet. But if something simpler were to come along... :-)


Take your pick: w3c validator (Perl/CGI), WDG validator (Perl/CGI),
mod_validator (Apache module), or Saqib's PHP. One of these days
I'll grab Bjoern's OpenSP binary for windows and try building
mod_validator against it. That'll then be both the most powerful
and most efficient server-based validator, as it already is for
Unix/Linux.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes:
I don't know, I'd like to have a way to install a validator on my
localhost-only Apache (which I use to test my sites).
Fair enough - your choice.
I use Windows.
Compiling OpenSP for windows is not for the faint-hearted, though it's now
been done. Hmmm, now that I think about it, there's a project now at
sourcefirge to add a validation bar to MSIE using a locally-installed
OpenSP. Check Bjoern Hoehrmann's posts to www-validator over recent months.
I could try to download
the w3c code, and get all the components, but I haven't made time for
that yet. But if something simpler were to come along... :-)


Take your pick: w3c validator (Perl/CGI), WDG validator (Perl/CGI),
mod_validator (Apache module), or Saqib's PHP. One of these days
I'll grab Bjoern's OpenSP binary for windows and try building
mod_validator against it. That'll then be both the most powerful
and most efficient server-based validator, as it already is for
Unix/Linux.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
You might find this more interesting:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...eisbetter.html


There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup. Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately, if
you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.

I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there is
a reason to use something other than standard markup.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
You might find this more interesting:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...eisbetter.html


There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup. Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately, if
you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.

I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there is
a reason to use something other than standard markup.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote:
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
the results won't be the same.
As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is not a validator at all, and you
have read that and you have decided to keep advertizing it as a
validator. You have now reached a new level of bogosity with the babble
about "engine".


Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a
validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
was. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
think of when they think HTML Validator). I'm not going to continue to argue
about this, but it's important that people understand this. The program is
not marketed under a false name. Never has been, never will be. Look up
"validate" in a dictionary and you'll see that there's more than one
definition.
Validators do much less good than many people think and say.


It's interesting that you say this. That's why I created CSE HTML
Validator -- to be more useful and do more good than "real" ones like the
W3C validator, since it isn't limited to validating only to formal standards
that can be expressed in DTDs. So it's great if that's what you want and you
want to limit yourself to that. But if you want more, the W3C validator
can't give it to you.

Anyway, use what you want, but I don't think it's appropriate to trash a
great product just because you don't like the name.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote:
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
the results won't be the same.
As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is not a validator at all, and you
have read that and you have decided to keep advertizing it as a
validator. You have now reached a new level of bogosity with the babble
about "engine".


Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a
validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
was. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
think of when they think HTML Validator). I'm not going to continue to argue
about this, but it's important that people understand this. The program is
not marketed under a false name. Never has been, never will be. Look up
"validate" in a dictionary and you'll see that there's more than one
definition.
Validators do much less good than many people think and say.


It's interesting that you say this. That's why I created CSE HTML
Validator -- to be more useful and do more good than "real" ones like the
W3C validator, since it isn't limited to validating only to formal standards
that can be expressed in DTDs. So it's great if that's what you want and you
want to limit yourself to that. But if you want more, the W3C validator
can't give it to you.

Anyway, use what you want, but I don't think it's appropriate to trash a
great product just because you don't like the name.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote
in message news:ts********************@august.net...
Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a
validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
was. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
think of when they think HTML Validator).


You could avoided this contentious issue if you had called your product the
CSE HTML Code Checker, or CSE HTML Lint program, or CSE HTML QC Toolkit, or
something more consistent with other, similar tools. Or if you had built a
real validator into your product, which users could use either separately or
in combination with your other code checks. Indeed, adding a true validator
to your product would both enhance its functionality and forever end this
kind of dispute.

Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote
in message news:ts********************@august.net...
Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a
validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
was. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
think of when they think HTML Validator).


You could avoided this contentious issue if you had called your product the
CSE HTML Code Checker, or CSE HTML Lint program, or CSE HTML QC Toolkit, or
something more consistent with other, similar tools. Or if you had built a
real validator into your product, which users could use either separately or
in combination with your other code checks. Indeed, adding a true validator
to your product would both enhance its functionality and forever end this
kind of dispute.

Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
Albert,

I understand the argument about empty TAGs (e.g. </p>), however empty
tags is well-formed according to XML standards.

A Validator, by definition, should only check for well-formedness and
validity. Anything beyond that, is not the function of the validator.

I really like CSE HTML Validator, but in real-life lot of sites use
empty tags, so CSE HTML validator generates tons of warning messages.

Just my .2 cents.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote in message news:<Lb********************@august.net>...
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so the
results won't be the same. You might find this interesting, though:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:40******@news.broadpark.no...
As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
local network.

I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
due to all the ASP code I use.

So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com

Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
Albert,

I understand the argument about empty TAGs (e.g. </p>), however empty
tags is well-formed according to XML standards.

A Validator, by definition, should only check for well-formedness and
validity. Anything beyond that, is not the function of the validator.

I really like CSE HTML Validator, but in real-life lot of sites use
empty tags, so CSE HTML validator generates tons of warning messages.

Just my .2 cents.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote in message news:<Lb********************@august.net>...
CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so the
results won't be the same. You might find this interesting, though:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:40******@news.broadpark.no...
As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
local network.

I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
due to all the ASP code I use.

So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).

--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction

www.fantafiction.com

Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
Albert Wiersch wrote:
There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup.
Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD
then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?
Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately,
if you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.
Gosh! The validator might not be useful if you don't care if your code is
valid or not! What an insight!
I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there
is a reason to use something other than standard markup.


What's the reason for this then? The valign attribute is well supported when
applied to table data cells and table heading cells, and the vertical-align
property will allow you to:

..myTable * { vertical-align: middle; }

Not to mention that valign='middle' is the default anyway!

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a
Albert Wiersch wrote:
There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup.
Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD
then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?
Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately,
if you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.
Gosh! The validator might not be useful if you don't care if your code is
valid or not! What an insight!
I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there
is a reason to use something other than standard markup.


What's the reason for this then? The valign attribute is well supported when
applied to table data cells and table heading cells, and the vertical-align
property will allow you to:

..myTable * { vertical-align: middle; }

Not to mention that valign='middle' is the default anyway!

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a

"Saqib Ali" <sa***@stonebeat.org> wrote in message
news:d2*************************@posting.google.co m...
Albert,

I really like CSE HTML Validator, but in real-life lot of sites use
empty tags, so CSE HTML validator generates tons of warning messages.


What are the warning messages you are referring to? CSE should be happy with
empty tags when used properly.

Thanks,
Albert
Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a

"Saqib Ali" <sa***@stonebeat.org> wrote in message
news:d2*************************@posting.google.co m...
Albert,

I really like CSE HTML Validator, but in real-life lot of sites use
empty tags, so CSE HTML validator generates tons of warning messages.


What are the warning messages you are referring to? CSE should be happy with
empty tags when used properly.

Thanks,
Albert
Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup.
Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01 Transitional

DTD then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?
Because I start with the closest standard DTD and add what I think is useful
from there. Do you really think that browsers care if I add an extra
attribute that they don't understand for the benefit of those using a
certain browser?
What's the reason for this then?


I do not remember the reason now. I put it in there years ago and there was
most likely a good reason. Are you willing to say that that attribute
doesn't have any effect in all the browsers and versions ever written? I
doubt it. Now I may very well decide to remove it in the future, but it was
put in for a reason. And neither can one say having it hurt anything, other
than an extra millisecond or so of page load time.

Albert
Jul 20 '05 #48

P: n/a

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup.
Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01 Transitional

DTD then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?
Because I start with the closest standard DTD and add what I think is useful
from there. Do you really think that browsers care if I add an extra
attribute that they don't understand for the benefit of those using a
certain browser?
What's the reason for this then?


I do not remember the reason now. I put it in there years ago and there was
most likely a good reason. Are you willing to say that that attribute
doesn't have any effect in all the browsers and versions ever written? I
doubt it. Now I may very well decide to remove it in the future, but it was
put in for a reason. And neither can one say having it hurt anything, other
than an extra millisecond or so of page load time.

Albert
Jul 20 '05 #49

P: n/a
> Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a
validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
was. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
think of when they think HTML Validator). I'm not going to continue to argue
about this, but it's important that people understand this. The program is
not marketed under a false name. Never has been, never will be. Look up
"validate" in a dictionary and you'll see that there's more than one
definition.


definitions are usually taken in context - The dictionay also says
friendship is a synonym for intimacy. That doesn't mean I am intimate
with Linus. :)

Getting back to XML:

A valid document conforms to the XML syntax rules and follows the
guidelines of a Document Type Definition (DTD), or in other word: A
valid XML document is well-formed and conforms to a XML DTD.

The process of comparing the XML document to the DTD is called
validation, which is performed using a validation parser (aka
validator).

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net
Jul 20 '05 #50

195 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.