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
195  8289 
Albert Wiersch wrote: That's not CSE HTML Validator generating those warnings. CSE has no
problem with <p/>.
Shame. Browsers do.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote: Good information!
We are not surprised at seeing that factual information about SGML was
new to the advertizer of the so-called "CSE HTML Validator".
So, if I interpreted your post correctly, it seems that it makes
sense to check HTML according to the "formal prose" as well as the
DTD?
Yes. Have to tried doing that to your markup?
Since a "real" DTD validator only checks according to the DTD,
wouldn't it be a good idea to also check according to the "formal
prose", perhaps by using a program that goes beyond DTD checking?
Maybe for some SGML applications, if someone wrote such a program. Surely
you cannot do that without knowing SGML, without knowing what "formal
prose" means here, and without actually reading the prose of the
specification of the SGML application in question.
In the case of HTML, the possibilities are fairly limited. You could, for
example, report <p></p> as valid but incorrect (at least at some level -
it violates a specific "should not" statement), but even <p> </p> (a
common product of wysiwyg software) is questionable, since the prose is
obscure in this issue. (Is a paragraph consisting of a no-break space
empty?) And although <p class="heading2">Introduction</p> rather
undeniably violates the prose of the HTML specifications, while
unquestionably valid, it is hardly possible to capture such cases, except
perhaps desultorily on a heuristic basis. And the more cases you try to
cover with heuristics, the more errors in error messages you generate.
The "CSE HTML Validator", which is not a validator (and not even an
imaginary validator) but is being sold and advertized as a validator,
despite several mentions of this fact in public through years,
does not even come close to _trying_ to be a checker that consists of a
validator and additional checks against the prose of the HTML
specifications. It just reflects its author's ideas, opinions, and
tastes, which may occasionally coincide with the formalized requirements
in HTML DTDs, or the prose of HTML specifications, or other W3C
recommendations - but its author hasn't bothered distinguishing such
issues from rules he just made up.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote: Good information!
We are not surprised at seeing that factual information about SGML was
new to the advertizer of the so-called "CSE HTML Validator".
So, if I interpreted your post correctly, it seems that it makes
sense to check HTML according to the "formal prose" as well as the
DTD?
Yes. Have to tried doing that to your markup?
Since a "real" DTD validator only checks according to the DTD,
wouldn't it be a good idea to also check according to the "formal
prose", perhaps by using a program that goes beyond DTD checking?
Maybe for some SGML applications, if someone wrote such a program. Surely
you cannot do that without knowing SGML, without knowing what "formal
prose" means here, and without actually reading the prose of the
specification of the SGML application in question.
In the case of HTML, the possibilities are fairly limited. You could, for
example, report <p></p> as valid but incorrect (at least at some level -
it violates a specific "should not" statement), but even <p> </p> (a
common product of wysiwyg software) is questionable, since the prose is
obscure in this issue. (Is a paragraph consisting of a no-break space
empty?) And although <p class="heading2">Introduction</p> rather
undeniably violates the prose of the HTML specifications, while
unquestionably valid, it is hardly possible to capture such cases, except
perhaps desultorily on a heuristic basis. And the more cases you try to
cover with heuristics, the more errors in error messages you generate.
The "CSE HTML Validator", which is not a validator (and not even an
imaginary validator) but is being sold and advertized as a validator,
despite several mentions of this fact in public through years,
does not even come close to _trying_ to be a checker that consists of a
validator and additional checks against the prose of the HTML
specifications. It just reflects its author's ideas, opinions, and
tastes, which may occasionally coincide with the formalized requirements
in HTML DTDs, or the prose of HTML specifications, or other W3C
recommendations - but its author hasn't bothered distinguishing such
issues from rules he just made up.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote: The intern has installed this CSE "Validator" on the library
computer and is presumably using it to test, or develop, or
something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
That's quite a challenge, but it is useful to try and learn to express
oneself with monosyllabic words at times.
It [the "CSE HTML Validator" - sorry I can't _name_ it using words of one
syllable :-) ] just tells what its author likes. Don't use it if you
don't know the real rules well enough to tell what's right and what's
wrong in what it spits out. It's known to make false claims 'bout things
being wrong when they are in fact right. It works by rules that someone
just made up.
(Sorry about the occasional bisyllabics.)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote: The intern has installed this CSE "Validator" on the library
computer and is presumably using it to test, or develop, or
something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
That's quite a challenge, but it is useful to try and learn to express
oneself with monosyllabic words at times.
It [the "CSE HTML Validator" - sorry I can't _name_ it using words of one
syllable :-) ] just tells what its author likes. Don't use it if you
don't know the real rules well enough to tell what's right and what's
wrong in what it spits out. It's known to make false claims 'bout things
being wrong when they are in fact right. It works by rules that someone
just made up.
(Sorry about the occasional bisyllabics.)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
I 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. 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).
OK, this thread has answered a lot of questions for me.
I'm totally new to validated HTML. I knew about W3, and the
online HTML validator. I did have a very basic knowledge about
validated HTML, and the idea behind it.
I have a web site with a ::lot:: of pages, with a ::lot:: of very bad coding.
To make the pages I had been using FrontPage, which didn't really
do things better. ;-)
To clean things up, and avoid getting all the dirty FrontPage code,
I switched over to DreamWeaver, and set up a web server on my
local network. Then I started redoing my web site, using my local
web server as a test server. Thus having my "dirty" web site online,
and not slapping my visitors in the face with a lot of errors when
visiting my site.
As I use a lot of ASP code, uploading the files to the W3 validator
didn't work, and I went out looking for something I could install
on my server, to check the pages locally. I knew I needed a HTML
validator I could download, and I that is what I searched for using
Google. CSE HTML Validator came up as a clear winner on the
search, as I saw it listed very many places. So, I downloaded it,
installed it, and was happy to see that it worked.
Then I uploaded one of my pages, and tested it with the online
validator at W3.org..... That's when I found out that something
smelt rotten fish. :-/ And after posting my original message here,
and reading all the answers, I found that it didn't just ::smell::
rotten, it ::was:: rotten, very rotten.
Conclusion:
If CSE HTML Validator had it's base (and server) in Norway
I could have reported the case to the Consumer Ombudsman
who would have found it/him to violate Norwegian laws, and he
would have to change the name of his product. Most likely he
would also have been fined.
As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.
--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction www.fantafiction.com
I 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. 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).
OK, this thread has answered a lot of questions for me.
I'm totally new to validated HTML. I knew about W3, and the
online HTML validator. I did have a very basic knowledge about
validated HTML, and the idea behind it.
I have a web site with a ::lot:: of pages, with a ::lot:: of very bad coding.
To make the pages I had been using FrontPage, which didn't really
do things better. ;-)
To clean things up, and avoid getting all the dirty FrontPage code,
I switched over to DreamWeaver, and set up a web server on my
local network. Then I started redoing my web site, using my local
web server as a test server. Thus having my "dirty" web site online,
and not slapping my visitors in the face with a lot of errors when
visiting my site.
As I use a lot of ASP code, uploading the files to the W3 validator
didn't work, and I went out looking for something I could install
on my server, to check the pages locally. I knew I needed a HTML
validator I could download, and I that is what I searched for using
Google. CSE HTML Validator came up as a clear winner on the
search, as I saw it listed very many places. So, I downloaded it,
installed it, and was happy to see that it worked.
Then I uploaded one of my pages, and tested it with the online
validator at W3.org..... That's when I found out that something
smelt rotten fish. :-/ And after posting my original message here,
and reading all the answers, I found that it didn't just ::smell::
rotten, it ::was:: rotten, very rotten.
Conclusion:
If CSE HTML Validator had it's base (and server) in Norway
I could have reported the case to the Consumer Ombudsman
who would have found it/him to violate Norwegian laws, and he
would have to change the name of his product. Most likely he
would also have been fined.
As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.
--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction www.fantafiction.com
Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:28:13 +0100, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
3. Anyone looking at your code will be able to look up your
DTD and see how you have defined the extensions you are using.
If the DTD is commented or contains the URL of full documentation...
From a formal SGML standpoint, we need to correct this statement :-)
Of course HTML and the 'formal SGML standpoint' are barely acquainted,
but let's play along. ;-)
Comments in a "Document Type Definition" entity is not allowed to be
read as "documentation" of semantics since the DTDefinition itself is
only about markup syntax in the first place.
Fair enough.
However, when someone creates a custom HTML DTD adding comments to say
"LOOK! I CHANGED THIS BIT" or "Netscape proprietary extension" are
essential not only for other interested parties but also for the
author when he returns in six months time and tries to find the
changes he made (I know, I've been there).
Also the inclusion of a link, to the governing "Formal Prose" part of an
application of SGML, is questionable. The SGML Declaration (if any) and
the DTDefinition comes as a result of the "Formal Prose" definition for
an application of SGML so in effect we should look at this as "traveling
down a one way street".
I see what you're saying but given the situation I described in my
post, how else is an author to get at the formal prose?
Is there anything actually wrong with a comment containing the URL of
the formal prose? Depends. Customs DTDs tend to trigger Standards mode in modern
browsers so the literal answer to the above question is "quite a lot
of them".
You changed subject; now you are talking about a "Document Type
Declaration".
Whoops. Yes. I thought I'd remembered to get this right, but this one
slipped through.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:28:13 +0100, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
3. Anyone looking at your code will be able to look up your
DTD and see how you have defined the extensions you are using.
If the DTD is commented or contains the URL of full documentation...
From a formal SGML standpoint, we need to correct this statement :-)
Of course HTML and the 'formal SGML standpoint' are barely acquainted,
but let's play along. ;-)
Comments in a "Document Type Definition" entity is not allowed to be
read as "documentation" of semantics since the DTDefinition itself is
only about markup syntax in the first place.
Fair enough.
However, when someone creates a custom HTML DTD adding comments to say
"LOOK! I CHANGED THIS BIT" or "Netscape proprietary extension" are
essential not only for other interested parties but also for the
author when he returns in six months time and tries to find the
changes he made (I know, I've been there).
Also the inclusion of a link, to the governing "Formal Prose" part of an
application of SGML, is questionable. The SGML Declaration (if any) and
the DTDefinition comes as a result of the "Formal Prose" definition for
an application of SGML so in effect we should look at this as "traveling
down a one way street".
I see what you're saying but given the situation I described in my
post, how else is an author to get at the formal prose?
Is there anything actually wrong with a comment containing the URL of
the formal prose? Depends. Customs DTDs tend to trigger Standards mode in modern
browsers so the literal answer to the above question is "quite a lot
of them".
You changed subject; now you are talking about a "Document Type
Declaration".
Whoops. Yes. I thought I'd remembered to get this right, but this one
slipped through.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. .. "Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote:
So, if I interpreted your post correctly, it seems that it makes
sense to check HTML according to the "formal prose" as well as the
DTD?
Yes. Have to tried doing that to your markup?
All the time!
In the case of HTML, the possibilities are fairly limited. You could, for
example, report <p></p> as valid but incorrect (at least at some level -
it violates a specific "should not" statement), but even <p> </p> (a
common product of wysiwyg software) is questionable, since the prose is
obscure in this issue. (Is a paragraph consisting of a no-break space
empty?) And although <p class="heading2">Introduction</p> rather
undeniably violates the prose of the HTML specifications, while
unquestionably valid, it is hardly possible to capture such cases, except
perhaps desultorily on a heuristic basis. And the more cases you try to
cover with heuristics, the more errors in error messages you generate.
The "CSE HTML Validator", which is not a validator (and not even an
imaginary validator) but is being sold and advertized as a validator,
despite several mentions of this fact in public through years,
does not even come close to _trying_ to be a checker that consists of a
validator and additional checks against the prose of the HTML
specifications.
Actually, it is heavily based on the prose part of HTML. Sure, when you get
that high level, there is some opinion involved, but you seem to think that
the whole program is opinion, when it's not. And the "opinion" that it is
based on is a high-quality opinion. Sure, there may be some questions and
problems, but nothing is perfect, especially when you do as much checking as
CSE does.
As you say, there is also some question as to what the HTML prose means, but
in many (most) cases it is clear. And there is A LOT more checking you can
do than simply DTD checking. For instance, accessibility checking is much
more important now.
Of course, I'm not going to get into the "validator" name dispute as that
wouldn't do any good. But I would recommend that you trash the W3C too, as
you trash CSE HTML Validator, because they use the term "CSS Validator" when
there's no such thing according to your definition. And the W3C markets it
as a "CSS Validator"!
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. .. "Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote:
So, if I interpreted your post correctly, it seems that it makes
sense to check HTML according to the "formal prose" as well as the
DTD?
Yes. Have to tried doing that to your markup?
All the time!
In the case of HTML, the possibilities are fairly limited. You could, for
example, report <p></p> as valid but incorrect (at least at some level -
it violates a specific "should not" statement), but even <p> </p> (a
common product of wysiwyg software) is questionable, since the prose is
obscure in this issue. (Is a paragraph consisting of a no-break space
empty?) And although <p class="heading2">Introduction</p> rather
undeniably violates the prose of the HTML specifications, while
unquestionably valid, it is hardly possible to capture such cases, except
perhaps desultorily on a heuristic basis. And the more cases you try to
cover with heuristics, the more errors in error messages you generate.
The "CSE HTML Validator", which is not a validator (and not even an
imaginary validator) but is being sold and advertized as a validator,
despite several mentions of this fact in public through years,
does not even come close to _trying_ to be a checker that consists of a
validator and additional checks against the prose of the HTML
specifications.
Actually, it is heavily based on the prose part of HTML. Sure, when you get
that high level, there is some opinion involved, but you seem to think that
the whole program is opinion, when it's not. And the "opinion" that it is
based on is a high-quality opinion. Sure, there may be some questions and
problems, but nothing is perfect, especially when you do as much checking as
CSE does.
As you say, there is also some question as to what the HTML prose means, but
in many (most) cases it is clear. And there is A LOT more checking you can
do than simply DTD checking. For instance, accessibility checking is much
more important now.
Of course, I'm not going to get into the "validator" name dispute as that
wouldn't do any good. But I would recommend that you trash the W3C too, as
you trash CSE HTML Validator, because they use the term "CSS Validator" when
there's no such thing according to your definition. And the W3C markets it
as a "CSS Validator"!
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. .. Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It [the "CSE HTML Validator" - sorry I can't _name_ it using words of one
syllable :-) ] just tells what its author likes. Don't use it if you
don't know the real rules well enough to tell what's right and what's
wrong in what it spits out. It's known to make false claims 'bout things
being wrong when they are in fact right. It works by rules that someone
just made up.
Boy, some people just can't stand CSE HTML Validator! You'd be doing a
disservice if you convince someone to dump a useful tool because it doesn't
work the way *YOU* want it to. Especially if you fabricate information about
it like "It works by rules that someone just made up.". I'd like to see the
look on their face when they see the results from the W3C validator after
using CSE.
What would you have them do instead? Become HTML/SGML experts before using
any HTML checking tools? Limit their use of HTML checking to only DTD level?
Something tells me that an expert HTML designer would still want to do
higher level checking and not be so limited.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. .. Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It [the "CSE HTML Validator" - sorry I can't _name_ it using words of one
syllable :-) ] just tells what its author likes. Don't use it if you
don't know the real rules well enough to tell what's right and what's
wrong in what it spits out. It's known to make false claims 'bout things
being wrong when they are in fact right. It works by rules that someone
just made up.
Boy, some people just can't stand CSE HTML Validator! You'd be doing a
disservice if you convince someone to dump a useful tool because it doesn't
work the way *YOU* want it to. Especially if you fabricate information about
it like "It works by rules that someone just made up.". I'd like to see the
look on their face when they see the results from the W3C validator after
using CSE.
What would you have them do instead? Become HTML/SGML experts before using
any HTML checking tools? Limit their use of HTML checking to only DTD level?
Something tells me that an expert HTML designer would still want to do
higher level checking and not be so limited.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Albert Wiersch wrote:
That's not CSE HTML Validator generating those warnings. CSE has no
problem with <p/>.
Shame. Browsers do.
Let me be a little more specific.
CSE has no problem with that by default. But if you think browsers (such as
an older browser) will have a problem with it and you want to be warned of
such constructs, then it is easily changed in CSE by checking an option.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Albert Wiersch wrote:
That's not CSE HTML Validator generating those warnings. CSE has no
problem with <p/>.
Shame. Browsers do.
Let me be a little more specific.
CSE has no problem with that by default. But if you think browsers (such as
an older browser) will have a problem with it and you want to be warned of
such constructs, then it is easily changed in CSE by checking an option.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
> As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.
In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking, and
did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the same.
I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
in mind.
Thanks,
Albert
> As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.
In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking, and
did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the same.
I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
in mind.
Thanks,
Albert
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote
in message news:8Y********************@august.net...
In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking,
and did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the
same. I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
in mind.
Also, I didn't ask what edition you were using. If the results were so
different from the W3C, then you may have been using the lite edition, which
is clearly stated on our site that it only provides basic checking. Much
more in depth checking (beyond DTD checking) is available in the other
editions. If you were using the lite edition and demanding at least W3C
validator compliant pages, then you would have most likely found the
standard or professional editions far more useful.
But if your requirement remains to only make your pages pass the W3C
validator and want to do no further checking, then CSE in any edition may
not be want you want. But I have had users report that they use CSE to
develop their pages, and then, for a final check, use the W3C validator.
That way, they have great benefit from CSE-- as it helps them easily write
good HTML (going beyond DTD checking) and they don't have the hassle of
accessing the W3C validator. When they pass CSE, they can then see if there
is anything additional they want to change to be completely OK by the W3C
validator.
CSE also has a "Standards compliant check" which makes the validation more
like the W3C (though still not exact-- you still get the additional checking
that CSE does, but without things such as proprietary markup).
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote
in message news:8Y********************@august.net...
In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking,
and did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the
same. I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
in mind.
Also, I didn't ask what edition you were using. If the results were so
different from the W3C, then you may have been using the lite edition, which
is clearly stated on our site that it only provides basic checking. Much
more in depth checking (beyond DTD checking) is available in the other
editions. If you were using the lite edition and demanding at least W3C
validator compliant pages, then you would have most likely found the
standard or professional editions far more useful.
But if your requirement remains to only make your pages pass the W3C
validator and want to do no further checking, then CSE in any edition may
not be want you want. But I have had users report that they use CSE to
develop their pages, and then, for a final check, use the W3C validator.
That way, they have great benefit from CSE-- as it helps them easily write
good HTML (going beyond DTD checking) and they don't have the hassle of
accessing the W3C validator. When they pass CSE, they can then see if there
is anything additional they want to change to be completely OK by the W3C
validator.
CSE also has a "Standards compliant check" which makes the validation more
like the W3C (though still not exact-- you still get the additional checking
that CSE does, but without things such as proprietary markup).
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html:Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote: The intern has installed this CSE "Validator" on the library
computer and is presumably using it to test, or develop, or
something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
That's quite a challenge, but it is useful to try and learn to express
oneself with monosyllabic words at times.
It [the "CSE HTML Validator" - sorry I can't _name_ it using words of one
syllable :-) ] just tells what its author likes. Don't use it if you
don't know the real rules well enough to tell what's right and what's
wrong in what it spits out. It's known to make false claims 'bout things
being wrong when they are in fact right. It works by rules that someone
just made up.
Thanks. I guess I'd have to look at all the source code and scope
out what was right and what was wrong, then match it to what the
"CSE HTML Validator" says and point out the faux pas. Sounds like a
lot of work, and at the end of the day I might be blamed not
thanked.
(All one-syllable words, and quite a struggle!)
(Sorry about the occasional bisyllabics.)
:-)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html:Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote: The intern has installed this CSE "Validator" on the library
computer and is presumably using it to test, or develop, or
something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
That's quite a challenge, but it is useful to try and learn to express
oneself with monosyllabic words at times.
It [the "CSE HTML Validator" - sorry I can't _name_ it using words of one
syllable :-) ] just tells what its author likes. Don't use it if you
don't know the real rules well enough to tell what's right and what's
wrong in what it spits out. It's known to make false claims 'bout things
being wrong when they are in fact right. It works by rules that someone
just made up.
Thanks. I guess I'd have to look at all the source code and scope
out what was right and what was wrong, then match it to what the
"CSE HTML Validator" says and point out the faux pas. Sounds like a
lot of work, and at the end of the day I might be blamed not
thanked.
(All one-syllable words, and quite a struggle!)
(Sorry about the occasional bisyllabics.)
:-)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************@wiersch.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html:"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net. ..
But if you're knowingly writing invalid HTML, doesn't the whole idea
of "validating" it go out the window?
No, of course not. The exception is only if one is a purist and is limited
to only using standards and 100% technical correctness. Most of the world
isn't so technical and perfectionistic (and that can be a good thing!).
So someone who thinks "valid" should mean valid and a "validator"
should validate is a purist, but you (by your own words) don't mind
telling a lie.
And that would make you a ...
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************@wiersch.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html:"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net. ..
But if you're knowingly writing invalid HTML, doesn't the whole idea
of "validating" it go out the window?
No, of course not. The exception is only if one is a purist and is limited
to only using standards and 100% technical correctness. Most of the world
isn't so technical and perfectionistic (and that can be a good thing!).
So someone who thinks "valid" should mean valid and a "validator"
should validate is a purist, but you (by your own words) don't mind
telling a lie.
And that would make you a ...
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
In article <40********@news.broadpark.no>,
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> writes: I 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.
Indeed, you started this whole thread, as a clear example of a user
who installed a product in good faith, only to find you'd been conned.
I'm totally new to validated HTML. I knew about W3, and the
online HTML validator. I did have a very basic knowledge about
validated HTML, and the idea behind it.
A daresay there are many in your position.
Conclusion:
If CSE HTML Validator had it's base (and server) in Norway
I could have reported the case to the Consumer Ombudsman
who would have found it/him to violate Norwegian laws, and he
would have to change the name of his product. Most likely he
would also have been fined.
Here (UK) we have legislation covering truth in advertising, and
accuracy of product descriptions. IANAL, but I expect CSE may be
in violation of both of those if it does business here. I believe
most (developed) countries have comparable legislation.
As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.
OK, you've got some answers: for a Windows user, arealvalidator is
presumably going to be far and away the easiest to install and use.
That's not to say other tools are not useful. As a developer myself,
I offer both formal validation and an accessibility analysis tool at
<URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>. If I described the latter tool
(AccessValet) as a validator, I'd be telling the same lie as CSE.
But I'd consider AccessValet at least as useful in "real life" as
the true validator, Page Valet.
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
In article <40********@news.broadpark.no>,
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> writes: I 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.
Indeed, you started this whole thread, as a clear example of a user
who installed a product in good faith, only to find you'd been conned.
I'm totally new to validated HTML. I knew about W3, and the
online HTML validator. I did have a very basic knowledge about
validated HTML, and the idea behind it.
A daresay there are many in your position.
Conclusion:
If CSE HTML Validator had it's base (and server) in Norway
I could have reported the case to the Consumer Ombudsman
who would have found it/him to violate Norwegian laws, and he
would have to change the name of his product. Most likely he
would also have been fined.
Here (UK) we have legislation covering truth in advertising, and
accuracy of product descriptions. IANAL, but I expect CSE may be
in violation of both of those if it does business here. I believe
most (developed) countries have comparable legislation.
As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.
OK, you've got some answers: for a Windows user, arealvalidator is
presumably going to be far and away the easiest to install and use.
That's not to say other tools are not useful. As a developer myself,
I offer both formal validation and an accessibility analysis tool at
<URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>. If I described the latter tool
(AccessValet) as a validator, I'd be telling the same lie as CSE.
But I'd consider AccessValet at least as useful in "real life" as
the true validator, Page Valet.
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
In article <MP************************@news.odyssey.net>,
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> writes: something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
<blockquote cite="http://valet.webthing.com/page/why.html">
It is important to note that validation has a very precise meaning.
Unfortunately the issue is confused by the fact that some products
falsely claim to "validate", whilst in fact applying an arbitrary
selection of tests that are not derived from any standard. Such tools
may be genuinely useful, but should be used alongside true validation,
not in place of it.
</blockquote>
Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?
(BTW, "some products" in the above of course means the CSE snake-oil.
I've also seen Tidy and Bobby mis-described as validators, but not by
their authors or vendors, so we can attribute that to honest ignorance).
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
In article <MP************************@news.odyssey.net>,
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> writes: something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
<blockquote cite="http://valet.webthing.com/page/why.html">
It is important to note that validation has a very precise meaning.
Unfortunately the issue is confused by the fact that some products
falsely claim to "validate", whilst in fact applying an arbitrary
selection of tests that are not derived from any standard. Such tools
may be genuinely useful, but should be used alongside true validation,
not in place of it.
</blockquote>
Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?
(BTW, "some products" in the above of course means the CSE snake-oil.
I've also seen Tidy and Bobby mis-described as validators, but not by
their authors or vendors, so we can attribute that to honest ignorance).
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Albert Wiersch wrote... In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking, and
did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the same.
I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
in mind.
I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think that
when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
most people, i.e. as set by W3C.
You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can it
be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if you
ask me.
What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that my
HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.
Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn
Albert Wiersch wrote... In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking, and
did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the same.
I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
in mind.
I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think that
when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
most people, i.e. as set by W3C.
You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can it
be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if you
ask me.
What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that my
HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.
Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn
Albert Wiersch wrote... Also, I didn't ask what edition you were using. If the results were so
different from the W3C, then you may have been using the lite edition, which
is clearly stated on our site that it only provides basic checking. Much
more in depth checking (beyond DTD checking) is available in the other
editions. If you were using the lite edition and demanding at least W3C
validator compliant pages, then you would have most likely found the
standard or professional editions far more useful.
I tried both, and neither of them complies to the W3C standard.
The question is; Why would I use I software I can't trust to give me correct information?
Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn
Albert Wiersch wrote... Also, I didn't ask what edition you were using. If the results were so
different from the W3C, then you may have been using the lite edition, which
is clearly stated on our site that it only provides basic checking. Much
more in depth checking (beyond DTD checking) is available in the other
editions. If you were using the lite edition and demanding at least W3C
validator compliant pages, then you would have most likely found the
standard or professional editions far more useful.
I tried both, and neither of them complies to the W3C standard.
The question is; Why would I use I software I can't trust to give me correct information?
Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn
"Nick Kew" <ni**@hugin.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:kq***********@webthing.com...
Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?
Or you could try telling the truth and stop slandering people.
Do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar? Do you slander them? I
hope not.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Nick Kew" <ni**@hugin.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:kq***********@webthing.com...
Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?
Or you could try telling the truth and stop slandering people.
Do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar? Do you slander them? I
hope not.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:40******@news.broadpark.no... Albert Wiersch wrote...
I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think
that when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
most people, i.e. as set by W3C.
You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can
it be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if
you ask me.
Read the page I pointed out and it explains why it's better. It can find
problems that the W3C validator doesn't. Granted, there may be issues that
the W3C finds that CSE doesn't, but in most cases CSE is better to use if
your HTML is intended to be viewed on real-world browsers by real-world
people.
The arguments that CSE is "fraud" and "worthless" are completely untrue, as
thousands of people have found it to be quite useful.
What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that
my HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.
Sure it can. Just use the W3C validator after using CSE to get the best of
both. Just use CSE's "standards compliant mode" in the standard or
professional edition and there won't be much more for you to do (if
anything). Plus, you'd benefit from the ease of use of CSE, not having to
access an online validator, and from the additional checking CSE does.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:40******@news.broadpark.no... Albert Wiersch wrote...
I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think
that when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
most people, i.e. as set by W3C.
You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can
it be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if
you ask me.
Read the page I pointed out and it explains why it's better. It can find
problems that the W3C validator doesn't. Granted, there may be issues that
the W3C finds that CSE doesn't, but in most cases CSE is better to use if
your HTML is intended to be viewed on real-world browsers by real-world
people.
The arguments that CSE is "fraud" and "worthless" are completely untrue, as
thousands of people have found it to be quite useful.
What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that
my HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.
Sure it can. Just use the W3C validator after using CSE to get the best of
both. Just use CSE's "standards compliant mode" in the standard or
professional edition and there won't be much more for you to do (if
anything). Plus, you'd benefit from the ease of use of CSE, not having to
access an online validator, and from the additional checking CSE does.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
The intern has installed this CSE "Validator" on the library
computer
how do I explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
That's quite a challenge, but it is useful to try and learn to
express oneself with monosyllabic words at times.
:-)
"CSE HTML Validator"
Don't use it if you don't know the real rules well enough to tell
what's right and what's wrong in what it spits out. It's known to
make false claims 'bout things being wrong when they are in fact
right. It works by rules that someone just made up.
A "linter" or heuristics checker is not unlike a word proecessor's
grammar checker. I've told students not to accept a proposed change from
a grammar checker unless they understand the rule being applied and
agree with the proposed change. Everytime I use MS Word's checker, it
flaggs constructs that are not errors. Even in French, which is my
second language, I find I often know better then the program. This is
rather natural when one is checking for things for which there's no hard
and fast rules.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
The intern has installed this CSE "Validator" on the library
computer
how do I explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?
That's quite a challenge, but it is useful to try and learn to
express oneself with monosyllabic words at times.
:-)
"CSE HTML Validator"
Don't use it if you don't know the real rules well enough to tell
what's right and what's wrong in what it spits out. It's known to
make false claims 'bout things being wrong when they are in fact
right. It works by rules that someone just made up.
A "linter" or heuristics checker is not unlike a word proecessor's
grammar checker. I've told students not to accept a proposed change from
a grammar checker unless they understand the rule being applied and
agree with the proposed change. Everytime I use MS Word's checker, it
flaggs constructs that are not errors. Even in French, which is my
second language, I find I often know better then the program. This is
rather natural when one is checking for things for which there's no hard
and fast rules.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, it was written: As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software,
As Nick Kew already said on his web page:
<blockquote>
Unfortunately the issue is confused by the fact that some products
falsely claim to "validate", whilst in fact applying an arbitrary
selection of tests that are not derived from any standard. Such tools
may be genuinely useful, but should be used alongside true validation,
not in place of it.
</blockquote>
Many of us already knew which product Nick was referring to in that
somewhat coded message. However, you will note that Nick says "such
tools may be genuinely useful", and I would say the same: but only if
they're presented honestly as what they are - a heuristic checker or
linter, not to be confused with "validation" in the specialised sense
which is appropriate when the term is encountered in SGML contexts.
BOTH kinds of tool can, indeed, be genuinely useful, when used
appropriately; in fact, validation (in the technical sense) *can* be
potentially misleading, to someone who is unaware of the issues, since
there are lots of things that are technically valid (in the SGML
sense) in HTML which are not, in fact, supported by the generally-used
client agents, and certainly *will* cause indigestion if they are -
deliberately or inadvertently - used in a WWW context, irrespect of
the verdict of a formal validator on the subject.
IMHO and YMMV, anyhow.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, it was written: As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
useless piece of software,
As Nick Kew already said on his web page:
<blockquote>
Unfortunately the issue is confused by the fact that some products
falsely claim to "validate", whilst in fact applying an arbitrary
selection of tests that are not derived from any standard. Such tools
may be genuinely useful, but should be used alongside true validation,
not in place of it.
</blockquote>
Many of us already knew which product Nick was referring to in that
somewhat coded message. However, you will note that Nick says "such
tools may be genuinely useful", and I would say the same: but only if
they're presented honestly as what they are - a heuristic checker or
linter, not to be confused with "validation" in the specialised sense
which is appropriate when the term is encountered in SGML contexts.
BOTH kinds of tool can, indeed, be genuinely useful, when used
appropriately; in fact, validation (in the technical sense) *can* be
potentially misleading, to someone who is unaware of the issues, since
there are lots of things that are technically valid (in the SGML
sense) in HTML which are not, in fact, supported by the generally-used
client agents, and certainly *will* cause indigestion if they are -
deliberately or inadvertently - used in a WWW context, irrespect of
the verdict of a formal validator on the subject.
IMHO and YMMV, anyhow.
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote: What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that
that my HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!".
Why? "Valid" icons are a mere distraction for visitors. Such icons or
declarations should be limited to a page describing the site mechanics,
which might include what tools were used to build the site, what
standards adhered to, etc.
Producing good web documents is the job of every author. Part of that
job is making sure the documents are valid. The public need not know
that you've done a good job. They should simply be able to access and
process your document easily and enjoyably.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote: What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that
that my HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!".
Why? "Valid" icons are a mere distraction for visitors. Such icons or
declarations should be limited to a page describing the site mechanics,
which might include what tools were used to build the site, what
standards adhered to, etc.
Producing good web documents is the job of every author. Part of that
job is making sure the documents are valid. The public need not know
that you've done a good job. They should simply be able to access and
process your document easily and enjoyably.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... BOTH kinds of tool can, indeed, be genuinely useful, when used
appropriately; in fact, validation (in the technical sense) *can* be
potentially misleading, to someone who is unaware of the issues, since
there are lots of things that are technically valid (in the SGML
sense) in HTML which are not, in fact, supported by the generally-used
client agents, and certainly *will* cause indigestion if they are -
deliberately or inadvertently - used in a WWW context, irrespect of
the verdict of a formal validator on the subject.
Y'know, years ago when I used C and C++, I used Gimpel's Lint program to
check my code for problems, and I remember that Lint would emit both error
and warning messages: error messages for syntactic errors; and several
levels of warning messages for questionable code; and Lint allowed me to
control which conditions would trigger the warnings.
Albert Wiersch could enhance his product and avoid this kind of controversy
by making his product behave much the same as my old Lint program: by
adding true validation to his product, emitting error messages for
validation errors, and warning messages for questionable code.
So Albert, why don't you? This would make your product more useful, which I
would think would enhance your sales (and profits!), and might also convert
some of your detractors into disciples: you could do well and do good, both
at the same time.
Why not, Albert?
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... BOTH kinds of tool can, indeed, be genuinely useful, when used
appropriately; in fact, validation (in the technical sense) *can* be
potentially misleading, to someone who is unaware of the issues, since
there are lots of things that are technically valid (in the SGML
sense) in HTML which are not, in fact, supported by the generally-used
client agents, and certainly *will* cause indigestion if they are -
deliberately or inadvertently - used in a WWW context, irrespect of
the verdict of a formal validator on the subject.
Y'know, years ago when I used C and C++, I used Gimpel's Lint program to
check my code for problems, and I remember that Lint would emit both error
and warning messages: error messages for syntactic errors; and several
levels of warning messages for questionable code; and Lint allowed me to
control which conditions would trigger the warnings.
Albert Wiersch could enhance his product and avoid this kind of controversy
by making his product behave much the same as my old Lint program: by
adding true validation to his product, emitting error messages for
validation errors, and warning messages for questionable code.
So Albert, why don't you? This would make your product more useful, which I
would think would enhance your sales (and profits!), and might also convert
some of your detractors into disciples: you could do well and do good, both
at the same time.
Why not, Albert?
"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote in message
news:U5******************@news04.bloor.is.net.cabl e.rogers.com... "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
Y'know, years ago when I used C and C++, I used Gimpel's Lint program to
check my code for problems, and I remember that Lint would emit both error
and warning messages: error messages for syntactic errors; and several
levels of warning messages for questionable code; and Lint allowed me to
control which conditions would trigger the warnings.
Albert Wiersch could enhance his product and avoid this kind of
controversy by making his product behave much the same as my old Lint program: by
adding true validation to his product, emitting error messages for
validation errors, and warning messages for questionable code.
That's how CSE already works, but without the "real" validator. It generates
errors for more severe issues and then warnings, messages, and comments for
other issues. And most message types can easily be changed. It's extremely
configurable. You can even add or change the messages to suit your style.
So Albert, why don't you? This would make your product more useful, which
I would think would enhance your sales (and profits!), and might also
convert some of your detractors into disciples: you could do well and do good,
both at the same time.
As for adding a real validator, I'd certainly look into it if there was
demand for it, but there's hardly anyone asking me to add it, and I'm not
going to add it just for the few people (two or three maybe?) who don't like
the name (who wouldn't buy it anyway). I'd be more than happy to add it if I
thought my users would find real value in it (provided the effort justifies
the benefit). Who knows though, maybe it will get added in a future version.
I have considered it before but couldn't justify it at the time.
Thanks,
Albert
"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote in message
news:U5******************@news04.bloor.is.net.cabl e.rogers.com... "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
Y'know, years ago when I used C and C++, I used Gimpel's Lint program to
check my code for problems, and I remember that Lint would emit both error
and warning messages: error messages for syntactic errors; and several
levels of warning messages for questionable code; and Lint allowed me to
control which conditions would trigger the warnings.
Albert Wiersch could enhance his product and avoid this kind of
controversy by making his product behave much the same as my old Lint program: by
adding true validation to his product, emitting error messages for
validation errors, and warning messages for questionable code.
That's how CSE already works, but without the "real" validator. It generates
errors for more severe issues and then warnings, messages, and comments for
other issues. And most message types can easily be changed. It's extremely
configurable. You can even add or change the messages to suit your style.
So Albert, why don't you? This would make your product more useful, which
I would think would enhance your sales (and profits!), and might also
convert some of your detractors into disciples: you could do well and do good,
both at the same time.
As for adding a real validator, I'd certainly look into it if there was
demand for it, but there's hardly anyone asking me to add it, and I'm not
going to add it just for the few people (two or three maybe?) who don't like
the name (who wouldn't buy it anyway). I'd be more than happy to add it if I
thought my users would find real value in it (provided the effort justifies
the benefit). Who knows though, maybe it will get added in a future version.
I have considered it before but couldn't justify it at the time.
Thanks,
Albert
"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Albert Wiersch wrote:
Of course, I'm not going to get into the "validator" name dispute as
that wouldn't do any good. But I would recommend that you trash the W3C too,
as you trash CSE HTML Validator, because they use the term "CSS Validator"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
Thanks, I see that Jukka is unhappy with the name "CSS Validator" (he says
it is misleading), but I don't see him bashing the W3C like he bashes CSE.
Seems quite unfair in my opinion. If you bash one, you ought to bash the
other in the same manner and magnitude.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Torbjørn Pettersen |
last post by:
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...
|
by: James Owens |
last post by:
I maintain a small web page for internal company use. People access it
by typing "library" in their browser address bar; this defaults to
"http://library" which the network admin magically...
|
by: Niki Kovacs |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm an Austrian writer living in Montpezat (South France). I just installed
a local W3C validator on my machine (Slackware 10.1, local Apache server).
It's accessible as...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |
