 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / June 2007CSS software tools sought
The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It does not work in Vista. I would like to find a replacement/replacement that did the following 1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are already present and that does some minimal editing on field values. 2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up. 3. finds illegal class tags in my markup 4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet 5. validates syntax strictly 6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours. 7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe even by eyedropper from some other app. 8. validates that fonts exist on my machine. 9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine. 10. validate embedded styles in my HTML. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com Roedy Green schreef: > The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It > does not work in Vista. I would like to find a > replacement/replacement that did the following [snipped] > 8. validates that fonts exist on my machine. Would you mind explaining why you would want that? Thanks, RW On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:08:12 +0200, Rob Waaijenberg <robwaaijenberg@hotmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >> 8. validates that fonts exist on my machine. > >Would you mind explaining why you would want that? It ensures I spelled the font names precisely, including spaces, especially in secondary font choices. Sometimes I would specify a font I don't have myself, but then at least I would be warned. I have been working with Albert Wiersch at CSE to put the following features into HTML Validator 1. recognise a font not installed 2. recognise an "uncommon" font. I compiled a big list of commonly used fonts. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com > I have been working with Albert Wiersch at CSE to put the following > features into HTML Validator Get him to change the name...  Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck Scripsit Beauregard T. Shagnasty: >> I have been working with Albert Wiersch at CSE to put the following >> features into HTML Validator > > Get him to change the name... The "CSE HTML Validator" has already become famous for bogosity and deliberate lying, so adding foolish font availability checks would fit into the picture. (There's nothing inherently unrealistic in the idea of font name checks, but it would require a careful implementation. Actually even a _trivial_ check for common misspellings would help. But I'm sure "CSE HTML Validator" will try something "better" and fail miserably.) SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > The "CSE HTML Validator" has already become famous for bogosity and > deliberate lying, so adding foolish font availability checks would fit > into the picture. Not true. The additional checks that CSE HTML Validator can be quite useful because they find potential problems that otherwise would go undetected (perhaps that is one of the reasons why the program has been around for over 10 years and has received numerous testimonials). For example, see what CSE HTML Validator finds with that the W3C validator completely misses: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/whycseisbetter.html You continually bash CSE HTML Validator simply because you don't like the name, even though it now includes a DTD based validator. > (There's nothing inherently unrealistic in the idea of font name checks, > but it would require a careful implementation. Actually even a _trivial_ > check for common misspellings would help. But I'm sure "CSE HTML > Validator" will try something "better" and fail miserably.) So you admit there could be some value in checking font names and then you bash CSE HTML Validator again but have provided no good reasons to dislike it. Albert Scripsit Albert Wiersch: > You continually bash CSE HTML Validator Usually only after you have popped up to advertize it, etc. > simply because you don't like the name, My liking it has nothing to do with the fact that you have selled a product under a _false_ name. For ten years or so, according to your statement. > even though it now includes a DTD based validator. Vow... a commercial product, sold as an HTML validator for ten years, now even includes a validator!! Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying? Let me guess... you may have finally souped in some validator code from somewhere (there are free codes available, after all), but your phoney validator _still_ claims that a document contains _errors_ when it does not contain markup errors that violate the DTD. That would mean keeping it consistently wrong. > So you admit there could be some value in checking font names That's obvious to anyone. It's a little less obvious, though also true, that doing such checks _wrongly_ is worse than useful. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using a font name like Foobar (literally) in a font-family rule, as long as the authors knows what he is doing (and "CSE HTML Validator" won't help here, since it issues misleading and plain wrong information). SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > My liking it has nothing to do with the fact that you have selled a > product under a _false_ name. For ten years or so, according to your > statement. Not a false name. Ask 99.9% of people what they want when they want an HTML validator. > Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying? I don't expect you ever to believe anything I say, but confusing people and bashing a product because of your claims of "lying" (because you don't like the product name) is not appropropriate and I will always try to set the facts straight. > Let me guess... you may have finally souped in some validator code from > somewhere (there are free codes available, after all), but your phoney > validator _still_ claims that a document contains _errors_ when it does > not contain markup errors that violate the DTD. That would mean keeping it > consistently wrong. Maybe you should stop guessing and actually use the product and know what you're talking about before bashing something you've never (or hardly) used. I won't review something that I've not actually used for a fair amount of time. >> So you admit there could be some value in checking font names > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > HTML Validator" won't help here, since it issues misleading and plain > wrong information). So *optionally* checking font names and informing the user that the font name might not exist or it might be misspelled because it's not recognized is doing it wrongly? I don't think so. Again, I recommend that you actually know what CSE HTML Validator does before you bash it. Also, feel free to tell me what this "plain wrong information" is. If it is truly wrong, then I'll be happy to fix it. For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what people who have actually used it say: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html Albert Scripsit Albert Wiersch: > Also, feel free to tell me what this "plain wrong information" is. If > it is truly wrong, then I'll be happy to fix it. It has been repeatedly explained in public why the "CSE HTML Validator", in addition to carrying an intentionally wrong and misleading name, issues incorrect "error messages" that are based just on its author's opinions and taste. You have repeatedly ignored this and kept misleading people. No wonder, since you make money out of it. You have repeatedly jumped in into discussions with no other agenda than advertizing your product. So your promises about fixing it are not worth anything. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Scripsit Albert Wiersch: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > incorrect "error messages" that are based just on its author's opinions > and taste. If that's the way you feel, then just use the DTD based validator and forget about all the problems your pages may have that can't be found using only a DTD based validator. Feel free, if you ever want to, to actually state a specific error message that CSE HTML Validator generates that has no basis in real-world issues. I challenge you to find a specific error message that is worthless to most web developers. > You have repeatedly ignored this and kept misleading people. No wonder, > since you make money out of it. The reason I make money out of it is because our users find benefit and value to the program (or they wouldn't buy it), much more of a benefit than they would get using a DTD based validator that doesn't find nearly the amount of potential problems as CSE HTML Validator does. For those who want to know what I'm referring to, there are great examples at http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/whycseisbetter.html > You have repeatedly jumped in into discussions with no other agenda than > advertizing your product. No, just responding false information. If your posting of misleading information and accusations of "lying" causes me to respond to it and thus more people to find out about CSE HTML Validator, then that's great. Albert On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:06:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >It has been repeatedly explained in public why the "CSE HTML Validator", in >addition to carrying an intentionally wrong and misleading name, issues >incorrect "error messages" that are based just on its author's opinions and >taste. So what? It is like a LINT for HTML. You don't fix everything a LINT points out either. It just points you to possible problem areas. If you want a W3C validator, use their validator. It is not nearly as convenient or as useful in rapidly cleaning up your HTML. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:34:34 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@ 123donotreply123.com>: > Not a false name. Ask 99.9% of people what they want when they want an HTML > validator. With respect, that is beside the point. On most technical questions, the majority of people don't understand the issues, don't know what to ask for, and trust the "experts" to do the right thing for them. For example, many people thing that Windows "registry cleaners" are a good thing, despite extensive evidence to the contrary. I don't know your product in particular, but to say that many people are satisfied with it and it's been around a long while has *zero* logical connection with whether it works right or does what it promises. After all, many people are satisfied with Windows, and it's been around a long while. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ validator: http://validator.w3.org/ CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ Why We Won't Help You: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you > For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what > people who have actually used it say: > http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see what people who have actually used it say: http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html SignatureIn memoriam Alan J. Flavell http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell >> For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what >> people who have actually used it say: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who have actually used it say: > http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html Yep, the only complains are the wearers discover that they have an uncanny urge to migrate northward... SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com >> For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see >> what people who have actually used it say: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what people who have actually used it say: > http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html On two sites I maintain, there is a page of 'testimonials' or customer comments. When I suggested to both clients that it would be a good idea to post a negative comment or two, thus making the pages more believable, both said "No way! Only *positive* comments!" I know that at one of the sites, some negative comments were submitted but not posted. Testimonial pages mean nothing to anybody. Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck In article <Pine.GSO.4.63.0706151727420.6629@s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>, > > For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what > > people who have actually used it say: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who have actually used it say: > http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html Nice link to keep! Signaturedorayme On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:07:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Vow... a commercial product, sold as an HTML validator for ten years, now >even includes a validator!! > >Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying? What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time. It now validates CSS as well. It gives you very fine control of just how picky you want to be so you can gradually migrate your site to ever stricter standards. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com Scripsit Roedy Green: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:07:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" > <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : You have odd attributions, if not misleading. >> Vow... a commercial product, sold as an HTML validator for ten >> years, now even includes a validator!! >> >> Why would I believe you, after your ten years of lying? > > What are you talking about? You're new here, aren't you? And did you miss the obvious irony? For years, the author of the "CSE HTML Validator" has made money by selling his product, despite even admitting that it is not a validator, yet kept the misleading name - and _now_ he presents as great news that the "validator" even contains (according to his claim) a validator! > I have been using HTML Validator for many years. Surely some people are using it. Otherwise its author hadn't kept selling it. > It has been validating HTML for a very long time. No it hasn't, as its author has repeatedly admitted, followed by no change in the name and advertizing - just excuses that it's not a validator in "technical sense", as if "validation" were not, in the markup context, a strictly and technically defined term. > It now validates CSS as well. I would not trust any "validation" reports from a software that has been sold under a false name for ten years. > -- > Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products > The Java Glossary > http://mindprod.com Consider using a markup validator: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fmindprod.com%2F SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:17:16 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >No it hasn't, as its author has repeatedly admitted, followed by no change >in the name and advertizing - just excuses that it's not a validator in >"technical sense", as if "validation" were not, in the markup context, a >strictly and technically defined term. In your world. But not in mine. Byte published my work on data validation back in 1985, long before HTML existed. The term validator has generic meaning. Since it has always been a try before you buy product, there was never any deception involved. You are just being prissy. There are far more important reasons to trash a product than its name. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:17:16 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >No it hasn't, as its author has repeatedly admitted, followed by no change >in the name and advertizing - just excuses that it's not a validator in >"technical sense", as if "validation" were not, in the markup context, a >strictly and technically defined term. And there are probably at least 8 people on the planet who use that term the way you want them too. You are playing ego one-upmanship games. You want everyone to think you are superior because you use a term in a narrower way than everyone else does. You were not deceived. No one else was deceived. Albert had no intent at deception. Since nobody was deceived there were no victims. There was no harm. There was no crime. You are just being a bitchy old queen with nothing better to do than put others down. YOU are the one attempting to deceive.. You tried to trick me into thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with the product, when it turned out its only crime was using a word you think you have exclusive rights to. You are vicious old bat. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:07:29 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" > <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many > years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time. It is odd then, that the site in your sig has quote a few syntax errors -- all of which CSE HTML Validator seems to be quite happy with. Aside: quite a lot of sites of people cited in the testimonials page for the product have markup errors. > It gives you very fine control of just how picky you want to be so you > can gradually migrate your site to ever stricter standards. That seems, from the evidence of the sites of people who claim to use it, to be its best feature. You can decide just how invalid you would like your markup to be, without being bothered by being told about it. > http://mindprod.com This contains <cseignore>...</cseignore> tags. This invalid markup is presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose? SignatureBen. >> What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many >> years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time. > > It is odd then, that the site in your sig has quote a few syntax > errors -- all of which CSE HTML Validator seems to be quite happy > with. That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by strict DTD based validators. If someone is more concerned about validating their pages to the strict technical specs than what real people see when they visit the site, then they're one of the few! Most people prefer that real people be happy with their sites rather than strict DTD based validators (which by the way, are very limited in what they can check). > This contains <cseignore>...</cseignore> tags. This invalid markup is > presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain > within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose? No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore". Albert <snip> >> This contains <cseignore>...</cseignore> tags. This invalid markup is >> presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain >> within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose? > > No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore". I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with it". It thought it was clearer in the positive, but I messed up the wording and it was very muddled. One adds invalid markup to allow other invalid markup to be ignored (by the validator)? Or does one sometimes add this invalid markup in order to get the validator to ignore valid markup? Either way, it seems a perverse choice for a "validator". If I were designing a syntax for HTML pragmas like this, I would make them comments (or maybe meta data if they were page wide). SignatureBen. > I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is > valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sometimes add this invalid markup in order to get the validator to > ignore valid markup? This markup works fine when checking with CSE HTML Validator and such tags do not affect user agents as they are simply ignored. > Either way, it seems a perverse choice for a "validator". If I were > designing a syntax for HTML pragmas like this, I would make them > comments (or maybe meta data if they were page wide). There is also a comment that does the same thing. It was added in a recent update to be more standards compliant and address the "perverseness" of a proprietary "cseignore" tag. Albert >> I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is >> valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > update to be more standards compliant and address the "perverseness" of a > proprietary "cseignore" tag. Your putting "perverseness" in quotes suggests that you consider introducing invalid markup to assist a validator to be *not* perverse. This is such a perverse design that it makes me suspicious of the software as a whole. Fortunately I can't run it. SignatureBen. Scripsit Albert Wiersch: >> This contains <cseignore>...</cseignore> tags. This invalid markup >> is presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain >> within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose? > > No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore". And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells better that way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes. This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes the document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness from a phoney "validator". To give instructions to software that is supposed to process HTML documents, the adequate method would be to use SGML processing instructions or, since they might confuse some wowsers, pseudocomments, as many programs use. ObCSS: This implies that it might be a useful to use, in a user style sheet for a browser that has good CSS support, bogosity indicators like the following: cseignore { color: red; background: white; } cseignore:before { content: " Bogus code, symptom of using CSE HTML \201c Validator\201d : "; font-style: italic; } cseignore:after { content: " (End of bogus code.) "; font-style: italic; } SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Scripsit Albert Wiersch: >> >> No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore". > > And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells better that > way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes. No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this misinformation. > This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing > software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes the > document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness from a > phoney "validator". This has been addressed and comments can now be used for those who prefer them to the proprietary tag. Albert Scripsit Albert Wiersch: >> And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells >> better that way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes. > > No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this > misinformation. No, you have not written anything that refutes my statement. You have just presented excuses for lying. That's like selling potatoes as apples and then presenting the excuse that although potatoes are "technically" not apples, they are apples in a broader sense and what people really want when they ask for apples, and besides called apples in many language (pommes de terre etc.). >> This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing >> software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes >> the document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness >> from a phoney "validator". > > This has been addressed No it hasn't. You gave no explanation to the madness. Of course, there is no good explanation, but you didn't even try. (Admitting a gross mistake is out of the question, I suppose.) > and comments can now be used for those who > prefer them to the proprietary tag. That's what you say now. But even if it is true, and I don't care, your phoney validator has already polluted web pages with the <cseignore> madness, it keeps supporting it, and the very idea of introducing it in the first place is a clear sign that you were not competent to write either a validator or any other useful markup checker. In a student's exercise, it would be an understandable mistake. In a commercial product, sold for years, it's a symptom of serious incompetence. And you still present this as if it were a matter of taste - "for those who prefer". This reflects your incapability of distinguishing between matters of taste and objective (or at at least well-defined) criteria - a distinction that is most crucial when designing a markup or stylesheet checker. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ >> No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this >> misinformation. > > No, you have not written anything that refutes my statement. Yes I have but to continue this discussion is a waste of time. > That's what you say now. But even if it is true, and I don't care, your > phoney validator has already polluted web pages with the <cseignore> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > exercise, it would be an understandable mistake. In a commercial product, > sold for years, it's a symptom of serious incompetence. Actually, it can be very useful and practical, especially for those who are mostly concerned with pages that are seen by people instead of whether they are technically valid in every way. Besides, if an author doesn't like proprietary tags, then they don't have to use them. Since you care so much about technically validity, then fine. It's your choice... but to continually degrade and bash those who don't think like you is inappropriate. Who are you to demand how web developers write their pages and whether they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically correct? Albert "Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message > Who are you to demand how web developers write their pages and whether > they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically correct? By technically correct I mean in the strictest technical sense based only on DTDs. Albert Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:51:37 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <nospam@nospam.nospam>: > Actually, it can be very useful and practical, especially for those who are > mostly concerned with pages that are seen by people instead of whether they > are technically valid in every way. Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy? I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and should be both. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ validator: http://validator.w3.org/ CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ Why We Won't Help You: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you > Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy? > > I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind > as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and > should be both. Sometimes it can be both, sometimes it can't (or it's not pratical). Real user agents don't use SGML parsers, so it's often a waste of time to concern oneself with every technical detail while neglecting other, often more important, issues. Using a program like CSE HTML Validator that is designed to be more practical is typically the wiser choice. I'd rather be alerted to potential issues that can cause problems for visitors than only concern myself with the limited number of technical problems that can be caught by using only a DTD based validator. Albert >> Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Albert I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results. Then analyze the differences. Test the pages in multiple browsers and, if you can, on different OS platforms. Then let's see what ensues. Otherwise, it's an intellectual (or marketing) cluster-f.ck and that has no end nor profit for anyone. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net http://mozilla.edmullen.net http://abington.edmullen.net >>> Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at > http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results. <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>: http://validator.w3.org/: Valid HTML 4.01 Strict http://www.htmlvalidator.com/: Errors reported: The end tag for "dd" (opened in line 74) should appear before the end tag for "dl" (nesting error). The HTML 4.01 specification says: Start tag: required, End tag: optional SignatureChris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ======== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) > <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The HTML 4.01 specification says: > Start tag: required, End tag: optional Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional. Albert Scripsit Albert Wiersch: >> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/: >> Errors reported: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better > structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional. It claims that there is an _error_ when there is no violation of a specification. It even claims that it is a nesting error, apparently because the person who wrote the "CSE HTML Validator" has little understanding of markup. Thus, this is an example of its bogosity, not usefulness. (Anyone who wants to make </dd> obligatory can use a DTD that says so - and use a validator, not a product that is incorrectly sold as a validator and gives wrong reports.) SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message news:H3fdi.179717 > It claims that there is an _error_ when there is no violation of a > specification. Yes, it is a violation of CSE HTML Validator's specification. Like I said before, if you just want to validate per the DTD and be limited to it, then don't use CSE HTML Validator's validator engine which goes beyond the DTD and performs many more checks. Use the included DTD validator or some other free DTD validator. > It even claims that it is a nesting error, apparently because the person > who wrote the "CSE HTML Validator" has little understanding of markup. Sorry, just more bashing. > (Anyone who wants to make </dd> obligatory can use a DTD that says so - > and use a validator, not a product that is incorrectly sold as a validator > and gives wrong reports.) Sure, one can mess with creating their own DTD for this issue, but why mess with custom DTDs when one can use CSE HTML Validator and get not only this, but many more checks which can't be expressed in a DTD? But go ahead and just use the DTD validators as that's all you seem to care about and leave the other tools to the people who actually understand the benefit from them. Albert >> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better > structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional. In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ======== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) > In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong > with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker. It's not a DTD based validator, but it does include one. Albert >> In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong >> with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker. > > It's not a DTD based validator, How else would you define valid? The so-called errors that I've seen it produce have nothing to do with validity. > but it does include one. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ======== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) >> It's not a DTD based validator, > > How else would you define valid? As CSE HTML Validator "valid" which means it passes the CSE HTML Validator tests. This checks for some of the same and some different things than a DTD based validator. > The so-called errors that I've seen it produce have nothing to do > with validity. As stated before, there's more than one definition of "valid". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid If you want only the strict technical HTML definition, then a DTD based validator is required. Otherwise not. Albert >>> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/ttc/>: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong > with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker. It is a style checker, but even an HTML style checker should have a working HTML parser. > I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages > immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their > page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at > http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results. Or, perhaps a better comparison is for one to download the free trial version of CSE HTML Validator and try it on their own site and see if it comes up with anything useful that the w3.org validator doesn't say anything about. And ignore any "reports" from people who just want to bash the program because they don't like the name. I'm all up for having a fruitful and fair discussion about the benefits and downsides to different ways to check a site. Albert >> I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages >> immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > comes up with anything useful that the w3.org validator doesn't say anything > about. Do you have a version I can run? I don't do Windows. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ======== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) > Do you have a version I can run? I don't do Windows. Sorry, we only have a Windows version. We do have an online version based on the lite edition here: http://onlinewebcheck.com/ But the lite edition is not as thorough and doesn't check spelling, accessibility, CSS, and links. Albert Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:51:37 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <nospam@nospam.nospam>: > to demand how web developers write their pages > and whether they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically > correct? And yet another false dichotomy. Being correct *is* practical. I don't know why you keep repeating "technically correct" as though there were some other way to be correct. Are you trying to turn that into a term of denigration, like "politically correct"? SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ validator: http://validator.w3.org/ CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ Why We Won't Help You: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you > And yet another false dichotomy. > > Being correct *is* practical. I don't know why you keep repeating > "technically correct" as though there were some other way to be > correct. Are you trying to turn that into a term of denigration, like > "politically correct"? I have worked with many people who have different needs and requirements. It is not always reasonably possible to be strictly "technically correct". In a perfect world yes, but we don't live in one. What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical conformance, which, in many cases, is a waste of time when it doesn't bring any practical benefit. Albert [....] > What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is > reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical > conformance, which, in many cases, is a waste of time when it doesn't bring > any practical benefit. Now that is a slightly scary statement. Does the expression "Near enough is good enough" effectively paraphrase this? Andrew SignatureAndrew's Corner http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/homer.html > [....] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now that is a slightly scary statement. Does the expression "Near > enough is good enough" effectively paraphrase this? What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all manner of things, and rightly so. It is a simple nonsense to suppose that a lack of perfection in something is necessarily a bad or scary thing. I assume that JK and others are getting stuck into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical benefits... Signaturedorayme >> [....] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical > benefits... You are right that a line has to be drawn but the question is where. It seems surprising to me that an HTML lint tool should not be at least a proper validator plus some extra helpful warnings. Most tools of that kind have "warning levels" to adjust the nannyishness. You'd think HTML validity would be the most basic level. Although AW's tool probably is quite useful to some people there are a lot of "bogosity indicators": it has a misleading name; it's horrible non-free shrink-wrapped Windows-only software with a GUI where stdout and stderr would have served better; and Chris Johnson very quickly found a bug in its HTML parser. > >> [....] > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ... You'd think HTML validity would be the most basic level. You would think so. I agree. But how is it really to be judged? Forget the commercial aspects, the claims for it, the endorsements. A real question is does it help people make better websites than they would without it? Perhaps these are the people who are put off by the starker pronouncements from the strict validators? It is very hard to judge. Most of us around here kind of like _strict_. But most of the internet is anything but. There seems to me a place for entrepreneurial offerings that make this world a bit better, even if opportunities are missed to make it even better. Signaturedorayme > You are right that a line has to be drawn but the question is where. It > seems surprising to me that an HTML lint tool should not be at least a > proper validator plus some extra helpful warnings. Most tools of that > kind have "warning levels" to adjust the nannyishness. You'd think HTML > validity would be the most basic level. Technical "validity" is not that great a thing to achieve in practicality. CSE HTML Validator checks for many important things (many things that DTD validators miss), is greatly configurable (like different "warning levels"), and you can even use the DTD validator if you care to be strictly correct, but hardly anyone does based on the feedback and questions I get about it. > Although AW's tool probably is quite useful to some people there are a > lot of "bogosity indicators": it has a misleading name; it's horrible > non-free shrink-wrapped Windows-only software with a GUI where stdout > and stderr would have served better; and Chris Johnson very quickly > found a bug in its HTML parser. So it's so "horrible" because why exactly? You don't like the GUI? Did you know it comes with a command line processor? I think you are talking about things you don't know about. As for the "parser bug", it's not a bug. It's designed to help people write better HTML by closing many of their optional tags. Albert >> You are right that a line has to be drawn but the question is where. It >> seems surprising to me that an HTML lint tool should not be at least a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So it's so "horrible" because why exactly? Source code is not provided, documentation wastes far too much space telling you "it's great" rather than what it actually does, although the "Program Limitations" page is quite revealing. It's full of stupid features like the "Tools", the "most powerful" of which, the template tool, does the job of four lines of Perl or something similar. Now I don't say this product is completely useless to everyone. I tried it on a couple of pages and the warning messages it produced were fairly user-friendly and informative (although no more so than those produced by tidy) and I even think the tools might be quite useful to a rank novice. But I'd rather novices learned about DTDs and real validators, and how to use decent editors and how to think for themselves, because none of that is really all that difficult if it's explained well, than to get sidetracked by products like this. > You don't like the GUI? No. > Did you know it comes with a command line processor? No. > I think you are talking about things you don't know about. I know a bogosity indicator when I see one. > As for the "parser bug", it's not a bug. It's designed to help people > write better HTML by closing many of their optional tags. Rubbish. If that were case it would have said "<dt>: warning end tag is optional and you've left it off: I hope you know what you're doing" or words to that effect. >> So it's so "horrible" because why exactly? > > Source code is not provided I don't see that as horrible but of course you're entitled to your opinion. > documentation wastes far too much space > telling you "it's great" rather than what it actually does You must have only read one or two pages because most of the documentation explains how to use the program and what the options do. > It's full of stupid > features like the "Tools", the "most powerful" of which, the template > tool, does the job of four lines of Perl or something similar. What four lines of Perl can do the same thing? I don't think so. I'll be very impressed if you can write the template tool in 4 typical Perl lines (maybe you could if the lines are really, really, really long!). Anyway, the tools are simple utilities that people find useful and not really the subject of this discussion. > Now I don't say this product is completely useless to everyone. I tried > it on a couple of pages and the warning messages it produced were fairly > user-friendly and informative (although no more so than those produced > by tidy) and I even think the tools might be quite useful to a rank > novice. Great, I'm glad you see some use. > But I'd rather novices learned about DTDs and real validators, > and how to use decent editors and how to think for themselves, because > none of that is really all that difficult if it's explained well, than > to get sidetracked by products like this. Again, you're entitled to your opinion but I think CSE HTML Validator is an excellent HTML/CSS learning tool. In fact, some instructors use it to teach HTML to their students and find it very useful. Besides, DTDs and real validators aren't that useful in practice, at least for HTML. >> As for the "parser bug", it's not a bug. It's designed to help people >> write better HTML by closing many of their optional tags. > > Rubbish. If that were case it would have said "<dt>: warning end tag is > optional and you've left it off: I hope you know what you're doing" or > words to that effect. Not rubbish. Just because it doesn't display your message doesn't mean what I said was rubbish. Albert > What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your > paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical > benefits... I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving by having never gone over the speed limit and by never doing a rolling "stop" where a full stop is technically required. And when cooking, is it important to follow the instructions 100%, making sure that it cooks or bakes for the exact amount of time specified, and that all the ingrediants are measured 100% accurately? I don't think it matters much. In many cases, recipes can be improved by changing the recipe to make it better. Have the posters who want "perfect" HTML documents always spell checked and grammar checked their documents for "conformance" before posting them? I doubt it. I bet they would agree that it would be practical to spell and grammar check every single message the send or post. Albert > > What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your > > paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD validator) world > always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ... Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website. Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is a necessary condition (or close to it). Signaturedorayme Scripsit dorayme: - - >> I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML >> documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD >> validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ... > > Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking > perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website. Please don't misrepresent the views of Albert Wiersch. He seems to be quite capable of misrepresenting facts (as well as other people's views) without any help. In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation", which is a rather foolish concept, comparable to "perfect existence" and "complete death", except that death isn't actually as rigorously defined as markup validation (and some philosophers argue about existence too). He wrote something that lacks grammatical continuity and any meaning - he is just bashing people who have revealed that "CSE HTML Validator" is a fake. > Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is > a necessary condition (or close to it). I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and it would be rather irrelevant. The point is, as Albert Wiersch has recently confirmed in a message of his, that the "CSE HTML Validator" operates on what Albert Wiersch regards as "valid" or "correct", claiming that anything deviating from that view (which has not been presented as any systematic document, just implicitly as "error messages" and other messages that the "CSE HTML Validator" spits out) is an "error". I might pay attention even to subjective messages from an HTML or CSS checker, with "subjective" defined as "just what the author of the checker thinks is right", if I had reasons to believe that the author of the checker is a competent and respectable person. Surely the condition includes ability and willingness to distinguish between subjective views and issues like validity and conformance to authoritative specifications or published drafts based on some consensus. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Scripsit dorayme: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and > it would be rather irrelevant. I presented that view. Perhaps it is irrelevant-- you could always run a validator first and then run the "CSE HTML Validator" afterwards to check for subjective messages. If you're lucky and it groks your valid HTML you might get some additional information. > The point is, as Albert Wiersch has recently confirmed in a message of > his, that the "CSE HTML Validator" operates on what Albert Wiersch [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > validity and conformance to authoritative specifications or published drafts > based on some consensus. These are good points. It might be an idea for AW to post the complete list of things that "CSE Validator" matches on and the subjective messages it produces for each one. Then there is a chance people will make useful comments. > These are good points. It might be an idea for AW to post the complete > list of things that "CSE Validator" matches on and the subjective > messages it produces for each one. Then there is a chance people will > make useful comments. I don't have such a complete list, but some things that CSE HTML Validator checks for can be determined from the information from these links: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/upgrade.html http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/v80/docs/configuration_flag_descriptions.htm Some of the messages are turned off by default because they aren't as useful as they were in the past (when people used much older browsers). As always, I'm open to constructive critism and suggestion to make the program better. By the way, that's one of the reasons the program is so useful. CSE HTML Validator is based on many suggestions and comments from web developers, as well as messages, questions, and useful information posted to this group and on the Internet. Albert > By the way, that's one of the reasons the program is so useful. CSE HTML > Validator is based on many suggestions and comments from web developers, > as well as messages, questions, and useful information posted to this > group and on the Internet. I forgot to add to the above that it is not simply based on what I come up with as the misinformers would like people to believe. I don't make this stuff up nor do I simply "invent" it. I go out and find it and then put it into a program in a way that makes it useful to web developers. Albert Scripsit Albert Wiersch: > I forgot to add to the above that it is not simply based on what I > come up with Do you mean that it is not "technically" just your compilation of what you regard as correct? (As usual, without saying what it really is then.) > I don't make this stuff up nor do I simply "invent" it. I go out and > find it and then put it into a program in a way that makes it useful > to web developers. That means you make it up, making yourself the judge of correctness, making the phoney "validator" call valid pages erroneous. Nobody really thought that you invented all of it out of thin air. Surely your subjective opinions are mostly copies (largely distorted copies) of other people's subjective opinions or even published specifications. The point is that the process is not reliable and transparent, and you really have not given the impression of a noteworthy expert in markup or CSS issues, so using a "validator" that is really based on your subjective evaluation is really foolish. Too bad most of the victims cannot see the irony. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > That means you make it up, making yourself the judge of correctness, > making the phoney "validator" call valid pages erroneous. Like I said, I don't make up this stuff. I get it from other sources. Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly declare pages "valid". You might know this if you actually used the product you are bashing mainly because you don't like the name. CSE HTML Validator simply finds potential issues and rates them on the perceived seriousness (error, warning, etc.) based on current web standards, and real-world issues. Again, much more useful than something limited to only DTD based checking. Also, if you would ever understand that there is more than one strict definition of "valid", then things might make more sense and you'd understand why CSE HTML Validator works the way it does. Albert Scripsit Albert Wiersch: > Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly > declare pages "valid". So now it's a validator that doesn't tell whether a page is valid or not. > You might know this if you actually used the > product you are bashing mainly because you don't like the name. I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only tells what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable expert. Anything you have written ever since (all you have written in c.i.w.a.* groups has been advertizing your product in various ways) has confirmed the impression. The intentional lie in the name is your choice - your way of making money, and I don't really like it, but it's your continued marketing under a false name that makes it a lie, not my like or dislike. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Scripsit Albert Wiersch: > >> Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly >> declare pages "valid". > > So now it's a validator that doesn't tell whether a page is valid or not. Most people care about fixing problems, not whether a page is declared technically valid or not. If you're so concerned about a page being declared technically valid, there's always the DTD validator that you can use that is included in CSE HTML Validator. > I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a > validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only > tells what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable > expert. This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. You might think it's crap, but the thousands of people who use it must not think it's crap. Being in business for over ten years selling the same program should speak for itself. If CSE HTML Validator wasn't useful, then it wouldn't be around any longer. Besides, if you had really tested it to any useful degree, then you would not have made the false statements that you did about it. Albert > "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message [...] >> I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a >> validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for itself. If CSE HTML Validator wasn't useful, then it wouldn't be around > any longer. You remind me of the young Bill Gates. > Scripsit dorayme: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation", That was an unfortunate phrase of mine. I should have said what I meant more accurately and that is that best he should not exaggerate, his critics being far from thinking that perfect html is html which passes DTD Validator tests. > > Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is > > a necessary condition (or close to it). > > I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and > it would be rather irrelevant. I meant only that his critics would more likely consider it a necessary rather than a sufficient condition to use a DTD Validator, He seemed to me to be implying otherwise and conjuring a straw man up. Previously I did present a view that if he was was able to help various types of authors (ones that would be easily demoralised by stricter attention) make better sites, then perhaps he is supplying a not altogether bad service. I realise you will not be pleased with this but it an impression I have. While his product is not for the sorts of people who continue to lurk about here, it is impossible to judge that it is, on balance, a bad thing that he should operate freely and people take up his product. It looks to me very different to snake oil. It looks to me to be even better than homeopathic medicine. Perhaps it might be at the level of naturopathy or even chiropractice (all of these "disciplines" I have learnt not to touch with a barge pole. But it would be bold indeed to say they have not helped a great many people) Signaturedorayme >>> What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many >>> years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by > strict DTD based validators. Surely you can't believe that. For most web pages that anyone looks at at all the great majority will not look at the HTML source but at the rendered output in some browser. More predictable results are guaranteed if the HTML and CSS are valid since browsers are not real people but computer programs for which technical issues are very important. A lint program like your product might be another useful tool for producing good machine-readable code. >> That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns >> itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at all the great majority will not look at the HTML source but at the > rendered output in some browser. Yes... which is why it is often best to use a program that is designed to try to find issues that are most likely to cause problems with the rendered output instead of a strict DTD based validator that only cares about strict conformance. > More predictable results are guaranteed if the HTML and CSS are valid > since browsers are not real people but computer programs for which > technical issues are very important. Have you seen the sample page here that is completely "valid" by W3C standards but contains many problems? Using only strict DTD based validation is not as useful in finding problems as many people make it out to be. http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/whycseisbetter.html > A lint program like your product might be another useful tool for > producing good machine-readable code. Yes, that is what it is designed to do. To take the best of validation and linting and concentrate on the issues that make the most difference when a page is rendered to a user. This includes checking document structure as well as also checking spelling, CSS, accessibility, and even potential search engine issues. Albert > That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that > concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical > issues that have little or no effect. <lol!> That's funny. ..doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is validation if not technical? You should rename it to the CSE HTML Non-Technical Real-World Pseudo-Validator for People not Browsers (Sorry that wouldn't fit on one line...) Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck >> That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that >> concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ..doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is > validation if not technical? Perhaps you didn't understand. It doesn't concern itself as much with issues that are of little or no concern to real people being able to view HTML while it concerns itself more with issues that are of concern to people actually being able to view HTML. That's what *MOST* people care about. Albert >>> That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that >>> concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Perhaps you didn't understand. Perhaps I did. > It doesn't concern itself as much with issues that are of little or no > concern to real people being able to view HTML while it concerns > itself more with issues that are of concern to people actually being > able to view HTML. You must be a fine dancer, Albert. Your skills of dancing around the real issue are very good. > That's what *MOST* people care about. ..only your suc^W customers. Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck > Perhaps you didn't understand. It doesn't concern itself as much with issues > that are of little or no concern to real people being able to view HTML > while it concerns itself more with issues that are of concern to people > actually being able to view HTML. That's what *MOST* people care about. A code-monkey can hack together bits to make a real gem example of tag soup, that somehow many current UAs can manage to display as a webpage, but in know way can be considered a valid HTML document. However relying on the tolerance of *current UAs* to handle such garbage is not a dependable strategy. Who is to say what browser will be 10 years from now. I'll put my money on valid markup today being supported tomorrow over invalid markup. SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message news:ec4ba$4673f753$40cba7a8 > A code-monkey can hack together bits to make a real gem example of tag > soup, that somehow many current UAs can manage to display as a webpage, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'll put my money on valid markup today being supported tomorrow over > invalid markup. Which is no problem with CSE HTML Validator if you want to write only strictly technically correct markup. You can use ONLY the DTD based validator or you can use CSE HTML Validator's own validator (to find problems missed by the DTD validator) as well as the DTD based validator. It's up to the author/developer as it should be. Albert > with CSE HTML Validator > You can use ONLY the DTD based validator Seems kinda pointless to spend money on something I already get for free at W3C. SignatureBerg > Seems kinda pointless to spend money on something I already get for free > at W3C. Even if you are only using the DTD validator, there are still many features that make it much more productive than using the W3C validator, like the built-in editor that integrates with the validation results, the ability to validate offline (faster and more reliable), the Batch Wizard to crawl sites, the integrated web browser to validate as you browse the web, etc. You can't get all that for free from the W3C. Albert |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message