 |
 | 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 / HTML / August 2008Validator program
In a recent crash I lost an application called ??validator (? means I don't remember). It was a three column screen where you cam enter the site and validate a single page or a whole site on W3C. The results appear in green in the middle column and any errors in red. Cannot find it with a Google - any ideas? NB It is not an online validator as they won't do more than ~100 pages  SignatureJim S Tyneside UK www.jimscott.co.uk Jim Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator program. Jack >In a recent crash I lost an application called ??validator (? means I >don't remember). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Cannot find it with a Google - any ideas? >NB It is not an online validator as they won't do more than ~100 pages > Jim > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>Cannot find it with a Google - any ideas? >>NB It is not an online validator as they won't do more than ~100 pages I downloaded the free version of that and it does not appear the same - unless I had an older version. The one I had, had a input box at the top left and radio buttons below to opt for single page or whole site. Below that was another box that I never used and mention of a 'spider'. At the bottom left was the start button. The centre panel was empty until the green and red page references began to appear. The numbers of 'failed' site appeared in orange at the bottom of this centre panel. When a page failed the validation the reason for ot appeared in the right hand panel HTML at the top and CSS below. Does any of this sound familiar? BTW The actual markup did not appear and corrections had to be made elsewhere and rechecked. SignatureJim S Tyneside UK www.jimscott.co.uk > Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember > right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator > program. > > Jack Previously the author of that fake validator used to advertize it in Usenet groups, without hardly ever giving any other contribution. People used to explain (to novices - the author did not care, since he has decided to sell his product dishonestly) that it is not a validator at all and gives plain wrong error messages, in addition to misleading and irrelevant warnings (with some real error messages scattered around just to confuse us). Maybe he now decided to use a fake name and fake address as well - that would be in accordance with the fakeness of the product. > > Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember > > right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Previously the author of that fake validator used to advertize ... advertise (I'm a validator program). >>> Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember >>> right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > advertise (I'm a validator program). Not sure your point. adverti*s*e US spelling vs adverti*z*e UK? Or that the program, regardless it's useful or not, is a *linter* not a *validator* therefor it not accurately named. SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > >>> Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember > >>> right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not sure your point. The poster is making a joke, he thinks he has caught JK in a spelling error and is capitalizing on the subject of the thread, validators. He is pretending to be a sort of validator that checks spelling. > adverti*s*e US spelling vs adverti*z*e UK? Compact Oxford English Dictionary: advertise verb 1 present or describe (a product, service, or event) in a public medium so as to promote sales. 2 seek to fill (a vacancy) by placing a notice in a newspaper or other medium. 3 make (a quality or fact) known. DERIVATIVES advertiser noun advertising noun. ORIGIN Old French advertir, from Latin advertere turn to¹. But, by contrast, my zed in "capitalize" (I am rather fond of zed where there is a choice. "s" is such a sneak, so common! Whereas a zed (a zee to you perhaps) is the proudest* of the 26 letters: capitalize (also capitalise) verb 1 (capitalize on) take the chance to gain advantage from. 2 provide with financial capital. 3 convert into financial capital. 4 write or print (a word or letter) in capital letters or with an initial capital. DERIVATIVES capitalization noun. * Can't get your mind around the idea of letters being common or proud or sad? Ask and I will try to help. Signaturedorayme Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant. I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The CSE program is the only one I've ever used. I know nothing about your claims below. CSE has always been kept up to date and current with the latest changes. My website has well over 1000 pages with over 2000 images. Believe me, if I was using a bad Validator, I would know it. Jack >> Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember >> right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Maybe he now decided to use a fake name and fake address as well - that >would be in accordance with the fakeness of the product. > Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant. A lot of us feel the same way - but in this case the rant is accurate and well-deserved. > The CSE program is the only one I've ever used. It's not a validator. The author claims that it is one, and that gets a lot of people's undies in a knot. That's not to say that it isn't a useful tool - it is. It's the deliberately misleading name that's the problem here. > My website has well over 1000 pages with over 2000 images. Believe > me, if I was using a bad Validator, I would know it. You might want to rethink that statement. CSE is a useful program - but it's not a validator at all, much less a good or bad one, and it's obvious from your comment that you did *not* know that. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Sherm Sorry, I really don't know what to say to you guys here. Besides, I was only trying to help a guy that was trying to replace his program. I know what I have, and I know what works. So, let me only ask this from you experts. What IS a validation program, and give me some names. Put up or shut up. Jack >> Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >sherm-- > Sorry, I really don't know what to say to you guys here. How about "gee, I didn't know that, thanks for the tip"? Seriously, I don't see any reason for you to get defensive and cop an attitude about his. You're the victim here - you were sold something that calls itself a validator, and you believed the label. The fault belongs to the guy who mislabeled it - no one is criticizing you for that. Well, Jukka is... but he criticizes *everybody*, so don't take that personally. :-) > Besides, I was only trying to help a guy that was trying to replace > his program. Good for you! Seriously - I mean that. Not enough people care enough to help others these days. Having said that, your motivation says nothing one way or another about whether CSE is a validator. The fact that you've been using it with all the best intentions won't magically make CSE into something that it's not. > I know what I have Apparently not, if you think CSE is a validator. > What IS a validation program, and give me some names. Validation is verifying an SGML or XML document type against a DTD. CSE doesn't use a DTD; it uses a different process, that is more accurately called a lint checker. The W3C has an online validator: <http://validator.w3.org/> There's an HTML Validator extension for FireFox, that uses the same underlying code as the W3C's: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/249> The Web Design Group's validator is based on nsgmls parser, and is available both online and for local checking: <http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/> > Put up or shut up. What's with the hostility? Are you always this rude with people who try to help you learn something new? sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> Sorry, I really don't know what to say to you guys here. > >How about "gee, I didn't know that, thanks for the tip"? OK, I come on a little to strong. In a earlier reply, I did say I made some mistakes. That may not have got here. So, Sorry. I'm kind of angry, because at the same time, when trying to help 2 different people, people that were not involved, jumped in with stuff that didn't apply. I did admit all that showed I was dumb in 2 areas. One of them was forgetting about the politics and people that think they own the group. >> I know what I have > >Apparently not, if you think CSE is a validator. I'm sorry, this is an example of what I mean. The guy was trying to get help remembering the validator he had. I just mentioned the name to help jog his memory. As I said earlier. I have 1250 pages, and over 2000 images. You try validating that with W3C. (Which is the best out there.) I do thank you for taking the time to answer me below. I see some opinions tho. CSE does the validating I need and it stays update and current. It is my Validator. I can't believe we aren't in the middle of a break down in communication. We can't be talking about the same thing. This seems so stupid. Lets agree to disagree. >> What IS a validation program, and give me some names. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >What's with the hostility? Are you always this rude with people who >try to help you learn something new? Only after the 3rd or fourth time they rant at me about something that wasn't even addressed to them. I explained above. I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was just trying to help some one and I get all these opinions, not help for the guy with the question. I can't help feel that some of you, (Not you), have never really tried to help the unsuspecting people that really need help. The only thing they post is gripes about how little the person knows. >sherm-- > I see some opinions tho. CSE does the validating I need and it stays > update and current. It is my Validator. The correct definition of a word is not a matter of opinion. What CSE does is not validating. That doesn't mean it's not useful - a lint checker can and usually is useful. > Only after the 3rd or fourth time they rant at me I'm not ranting about anything, I'm simply pointing out the facts: A validator, in the correct definition of the word as it's used with respect to SGML and XML, performs the specific function of parsing a DTD and using that to assess the validity of a document. CSE does not perform that function, hence it is not a validator. It would be better described as a "lint checker" - a useful tool, to be sure, but not what CSE's author claims it is. Think of it this way - gasoline and diesel perform roughly similar functions. And yet, you'd be rather angry at the station owner if the pump that said "gasoline" in fact was pumping diesel, wouldn't you? If you saw someone pulling up to the same pump, getting ready to fill their tank, wouldn't you stop and warn them that they won't get what the labels says they'll get? > I explained above. I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was just trying > to help some one and I get all these opinions, not help for the guy > with the question. The guy with the question asked for a validator. How is it not helpful to speak up when someone mistakenly suggests an app that is not, in fact, what the guy wanted? sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > I'm not ranting about anything, I'm simply pointing out the facts: A > validator, in the correct definition of the word as it's used with > respect to SGML and XML, performs the specific function of parsing a > DTD and using that to assess the validity of a document. I've been over this many times because this has come up many times. That's one definition of "HTML Validator" . There are other deifnitions as well. The people who rant about CSE HTML Validator simply don't like the name because they choose to base it only on one definition of "HTML Validator". Look up HTML Validator on the web and there are other definitions and meanings in addition to the one above. There is much mis-information from the people who bash the program simply because they don't like/don't agree with the name. It really is silly and the mis-information does not help people. > CSE does not perform that function, hence it is not a validator. It > would be better described as a "lint checker" - a useful tool, to be > sure, but not what CSE's author claims it is. This is more mis-information. CSE HTML Validator Std/Pro includes a DTD based validator which can be used if desired. It's been included for quite a while now. Albert Wiersch >> I'm not ranting about anything, I'm simply pointing out the facts: A >> validator, in the correct definition of the word as it's used with >> respect to SGML and XML, performs the specific function of parsing a >> DTD and using that to assess the validity of a document. > > I've been over this many times Yes you have. Give it a rest, please. > That's one definition of "HTML Validator". That's the correct one in this context. > There are other deifnitions as well. Which may be correct in other contexts, but not in this one. Such is often the case with technical terms. > The people who rant about CSE HTML Validator simply don't like the name > because they choose to base it only on one definition of "HTML > Validator". I don't like the name because it's a deliberate lie, designed to fool people who are looking for a genuine validator into buying your product instead. > Look up HTML Validator on the web and there are other definitions and > meanings in addition to the one above. Whatever - one can also find "evidence" on the web that the moon landings were faked. The fact that many people have been fooled into believing your lie doesn't make it true. >> CSE does not perform that function, hence it is not a validator. It >> would be better described as a "lint checker" - a useful tool, to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > based validator which can be used if desired. It's been included for quite a > while now. Too little, too late. You're a liar and a fraud, only telling the truth because you've been badgered into it. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> I've been over this many times > > Yes you have. Give it a rest, please. I'd love to when people stop spreading mis-information. > I don't like the name because it's a deliberate lie, designed to fool > people who are looking for a genuine validator into buying your > product instead. Completely wrong. > Too little, too late. You're a liar and a fraud, only telling the > truth because you've been badgered into it. At no time did I ever claim that CSE HTML Validator's own validation engine was a DTD based validator. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you stop calling people liars, especially when you have no proof. I know you have no proof because I know I never said that CSE HTML Validator's own engine was a DTD based validator. Albert Wiersch > At no time did I ever claim that CSE HTML Validator's own validation > engine was a DTD based validator. You have done that for years, calling your product a validator. The word "validator" has a well-defined meaning in the context of HTML. > - - I never said that CSE > HTML Validator's own engine was a DTD based validator. You're _so_ ridiculous. Maybe you never used those words in your lies. It's like selling snake oil as medicine to all diseases for years and later saying "I never said it would cure any disease" or "I never called it panacea" or "I never claimed it to be a panacea in the formal sense". > At no time did I ever claim that CSE HTML Validator's own validation > engine was a DTD based validator. That's exactly what you claim, when you call it a validator. > Therefore, I strongly recommend that you stop > calling people liars I will when you stop lying. > especially when you have no proof. The proof is the name of your fraudulent product. > I know you have no > proof because I know I never said that CSE HTML Validator's own > engine was a DTD based validator. If it's not DTD based, it's not a validator. It's a lint checker. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >As I said earlier. I have 1250 pages, and over 2000 images. You try >validating that with W3C. (Which is the best out there.) Images don't neet validating. You should have validated those 1250 pages (with a real Validator) as you created them, but since you didn't, I advise fixing a few every day. With a good text editor that does search and replace in multiple files, if you fix an error in one pages you can fix all pages that have the same error. >I see some opinions tho. CSE does the validating I need and it stays >update and current. It is my Validator. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Lets agree to disagree. Sorry, but I cannot agree to disagree. If you say you like Vanilla better than Chocolate we can agree to disagree. If you say that a Cow is a Pig, we cannot agree to disagree, because one of us is wrong. CSE Is not a Validator. A Validator chcks a SGML or XML document to see if it conforms to its DTD. CSE is something else. It isn't bad, but it isn't a Validator. http://validator.w3.org/ is a Validator. >I can't help feel that some of you, (Not you), have never really tried >to help the unsuspecting people that really need help. The only thing >they post is gripes about how little the person knows. That's simply not true. You aren't helping anyone by saying things that aren't true. We are not griping about how little you know when we correct your false statements. The problem is that you refuse to accept any correction; you just keep on repeating your false statements rather than learning the truth. SignatureGuy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Thanks for your comments. A few remarks are below. I'm putting out my summary of my thoughts in a different message. Please check for it. Jack >>As I said earlier. I have 1250 pages, and over 2000 images. You try >>validating that with W3C. (Which is the best out there.) > >Images don't neet validating. You are right, but every image needs it's anchor checked. >You should have validated those 1250 pages (with a real Validator) >as you created them, but since you didn't, I advise fixing a few >every day. With a good text editor that does search and replace >in multiple files, if you fix an error in one pages you can fix >all pages that have the same error. I validate my pages if I even look at them cross-eyed. Every time I create one or edit it, it gets checked. I do have a change that is going to have to be made on ALL of my pages. I'll be using CSE for that, as I've done before, and it will work, as it has done before. >>I see some opinions tho. CSE does the validating I need and it stays >>update and current. It is my Validator. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >CSE is something else. It isn't bad, but it isn't a Validator. >http://validator.w3.org/ is a Validator. I'm not going through this anymore. I did learn a lot about validation from all this. I also think I understand more about why I call CSE a Validator. See my summery. >>I can't help feel that some of you, (Not you), have never really tried >>to help the unsuspecting people that really need help. The only thing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >refuse to accept any correction; you just keep on repeating your >false statements rather than learning the truth. The best help I got from all this bickering in these 20 posts, came from C.A. Upsdell. In about 3 lines he pointed me to a page that explains what a real Validator is. All of you could learn from him. Thank you C. A. > >Lets agree to disagree. > > Sorry, but I cannot agree to disagree. If you say you like Vanilla > better than Chocolate we can agree to disagree. If you say that a > Cow is a Pig, we cannot agree to disagree, because one of us is wrong. Which, of course, is nonsense. If it were not nonsense then people could only agree with each other to disagree where there was no truth of the matter. And in cases where there is no truth involved, there is no real disagreement in the first place and so there could not be a successful agreement to disagree*. In other words, one can only truly and successfully agree to disagree where there is a truth involved and only one of the partners of the agreement could at most be right. *Agreeing to disagree is to be distinguished from agreeing not to hurl rotten tomatoes at each other. Agreeing to disagree is simply to agree to not try further to convince the other of one's belief. Under a looser idea than the one I propose above, this is also applicable to where there is no truth involved, where one person tries to convince the other to like what he likes. Signaturedorayme >> What IS a validation program, and give me some names. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > available both online and for local checking: > <http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/> Another is aRealValidator.com > What IS a validation program, and give me some names. > Put up or shut up. You may find this useful: http://www.arealvalidator.com/real-validation.html > > What IS a validation program, and give me some names. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.arealvalidator.com/real-validation.html Thanks to all who are searching on my behalf or even their own <g> No-one has found the one I lost which seems strange as I used it a lot. To the pedants who chipped their two pennorth in; of course what I seek is not in itself a validator as it uses WDG or W3C and then reports back with any errors, but it called itself a validator and did what I wanted so that's good enough for me. SignatureJim S Tyneside UK www.jimscott.co.uk C. A. Thanks for your short, brief, useful, professional and polite answer to my opinions on Validator's. That was perfect for my needs and confusion. Now. Here's my final thoughts on all these 20 some odd posts that ended up with some of you arguing among yourself's. First, there is no way I'm going to let you guys get turned loose on my website, so I will not name it. Here is where some of my confusion comes from. When I started my website, my number one goal was KISS. Keep It simple Stupid. The whole site is almost all tables. No frames, no forms, no search's, (My site is to big for those I've found so far.) Plus no DIV's, lists or much more than that. I do know I need to try to get away from tables one of these days. Right now, there is to much difference between the 2 main browsers. So, again. KISS. Right now, I'm trying to get it all up to 4.01 standards, but not Strict yet. It is a reference website. Nothing but a way overgrown collection of over 1220 different things supporting over 2000 images. It has to be manually updated when I add more. Biggest mistake I've ever made was not taking the time to learn how to do it in a database. Because I've always kept it simple I think is the reason I've been able to use CSE. Ok, maybe it's not as high class as I need, but till now, I didn't even known the difference. It does what I need, who cares. Thank you Albert for a good program that fills my needs. And thanks again C A for giving me what I needed with out a lecture. Jack > > What IS a validation program, and give me some names. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.arealvalidator.com/real-validation.html > C. A. > And thanks again C A for giving me what I needed with out a lecture. May I make a suggestion, however: not a lecture? When I first started validating pages, eons ago, I found that there was an unexpected benefit: by examining my errors, I developed a better understanding of HTML and CSS, which I think made me a better designer. Perhaps you might also. >> C. A. >> And thanks again C A for giving me what I needed with out a lecture. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > understanding of HTML and CSS, which I think made me a better designer. > Perhaps you might also. Well, there you go. *Now* you're on his sh.t list. :) I'm waiting for him to demand a refund. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html > Thank you Albert for a good program that fills my needs. You're very welcome. I'm happy that you like the program and it meets your needs. If you want DTD validation in addition to CSE's own validation, then you can use the DTD based validation that is included with CSE HTML Validator (Std/Pro). Albert Wiersch >First, there is no way I'm going to let you guys get turned loose on >my website, so I will not name it. Drama Queen. *PLONK* > Because I've always kept it simple I think is the reason I've been > able to use CSE. Ok, maybe it's not as high class as I need, but > till now, I didn't even known the difference. It does what I need, > who cares. I think you're still missing the point a bit. It's not about "class," or about whether CSE performs a useful function or not. It's about truth in advertising - I don't like the fact that CSE was originally advertised as something that it was not. Even considering that the "pro" version now has a validator, Albert's own honesty is still in question. He didn't add the validator until he was forced to do so, to live up to his claims about his product. Do you want to do business with someone who's only honest when he has no other choice? I don't. There are plenty of good tools out there - you don't need to support dishonest people to lint-check or validate your site. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Sherm Thanks for the comments. The "point" was missed a long time back in this thread. I answered a post from some one that had lost his validator and couldn't remember the programs name. I gave him the CSE name in case it may have been the one he had. If it was, then he would have already known about CSE. If not, it would have just been another name trying to help him jog his memory. I don't know what your problem is with Albert and I don't care. Your name is going to the same place Guy put mine. In the kill file. Jack >> Because I've always kept it simple I think is the reason I've been >> able to use CSE. Ok, maybe it's not as high class as I need, but [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >sherm-- >I don't know what your problem is with Albert and I don't care. >Your name is going to the same place Guy put mine. In the kill file. Do us a favour Jack, stick mine in there too. We'll have a party. > Do us a favour Jack, stick mine in there too. We'll have a party. W00t! I'll bring the Guinness, and then we can argue with the Bud drinkers about what the word "beer" really means. :-) sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > W00t! I'll bring the Guinness, and then we can argue with the Bud > drinkers about what the word "beer" really means. :-) Guinness vs Bud? Com 'on! Except for washing grease off of engine parts who would actually drink a Bud? SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com >> W00t! I'll bring the Guinness, and then we can argue with the Bud >> drinkers about what the word "beer" really means. :-) > > Guinness vs Bud? Com 'on! Except for washing grease off of engine parts > who would actually drink a Bud? I would. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html >>> W00t! I'll bring the Guinness, and then we can argue with the Bud >>> drinkers about what the word "beer" really means. :-) >> Guinness vs Bud? Com 'on! Except for washing grease off of engine parts >> who would actually drink a Bud? > > I would. Well if I downed as much seawater, squid, and fisherman's boots I guess I would too! SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > > W00t! I'll bring the Guinness, and then we can argue with the Bud > > drinkers about what the word "beer" really means. :-) > > Guinness vs Bud? Com 'on! Except for washing grease off of engine parts > who would actually drink a Bud? <http://members.optushome.com.au/hewajama/films/budLight.mpg> Signaturedorayme > > W00t! I'll bring the Guinness, and then we can argue with the Bud > > drinkers about what the word "beer" really means. :-) > > Guinness vs Bud? Com 'on! Except for washing grease off of engine parts > who would actually drink a Bud? So Bud really *is* detergent? Just what I always thought. >> > W00t! I'll bring the Guinness, and then we can argue with the Bud >> > drinkers about what the word "beer" really means. :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So Bud really *is* detergent? Just what I always thought. You know, if it actually tasted like beer, they wouldn't need commercials telling us "this is beer" - we could figure it out for our selves. :-) sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > Guinness vs Bud? Com 'on! Except for washing grease off of engine parts > who would actually drink a Bud? Well I would, but that's because I live in a place where our "Bud" comes from the right country and "Bohemia" isn't just a corner of Greenwich Village. > I don't know what your problem is with Albert and I don't care. I told you what my problem with him is - he's dishonest. You don't care about truth in advertising? > Your name is going to the same place Guy put mine. In the kill > file. Whatever. If you'd rather hear dishonest sales pitches than accurate technical info, that's your loss. Am I supposed to feel bad about it or something? sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > Sherm > > I don't know what your problem is with Albert and I don't care. > Your name is going to the same place Guy put mine. In the kill file. That's very unfair. By the grace of god some people have not kf'd you in spite of your annoying habit of top posting. Look, Jack, I am going to level with you. I have come to earth to be kf'd just as Christ did to absorb man's guilt onto His shoulders. So don't do this to Sherm, he is not good in kfs, he suffers needlessly. Please, please take me. Signaturedorayme Man I just had to laugh. Now you are going to bring up top versus bottom posting! Talk about a agree to disagree topic. No thanks, I'll pass, and post where I want. About my kill files. I make them all temporary. I'm not perfect, and sometimes find out that I was wrong about some one. (Or they were right about me.) Jack 8:) >> Sherm >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >absorb man's guilt onto His shoulders. So don't do this to Sherm, he is >not good in kfs, he suffers needlessly. Please, please take me. > Man > > I just had to laugh. Now you are going to bring up top versus bottom > posting! http://blinkynet.net/comp/toppost.html SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html <pan.2008.08.25.22.46.34.685481@thurston.blinkynet.net> >> Man >> >> I just had to laugh. Now you are going to bring up top versus bottom >> posting! > > http://blinkynet.net/comp/toppost.html LOL, tis this why ya can smell em long before ya see em. SignatureBootNic Mon Aug 25, 2008 07:42 pm A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. *Herm Albright* > BootNic Mon Aug 25, 2008 07:42 pm > A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy > enough people to make it worth the effort. > *Herm Albright* Which may be behind the disdain some people have for Poppy in Happy-Go-Lucky. Signaturedorayme >> Sherm >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > absorb man's guilt onto His shoulders. So don't do this to Sherm, he is > not good in kfs, he suffers needlessly. Please, please take me. And it came to pass, as was foretold by the prophets, that dorayme, the crafter of pages, who was also called Peter, and Simon, and Edward also, likewise Ted, and Hildegard, and a host of other names not to be printed in This Book, did knowingly surrender to The One With The Miscapitalised Name. And The One With The Miscapitalised Name slew dorayme, adding dorayme to his killfile. And no man did speak, nor make to stop the deed, nor did anyone complain, nor call the cops, for they were on the other side of the World from dorayme and the land of the pocketed beasts, and did sleep. And dorayme gave his life for the sins of us all. But did rise up again, upon the next day, and did go for a swim, just like always. SignatureJohn Sermons to suit any purpose. Any length. Any subject. Will travel. Call for a free estimate. No obligation. > >> Sherm > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > And dorayme gave his life for the sins of us all. But did rise up again, > upon the next day, and did go for a swim, just like always. And this Lazarus found the water agreeably refreshing, not least because He drew away from them and stood apart from their miserable cowardly shirking natures that would balk at the winter seas. Signaturedorayme John I like that. I'm not sure I really know what you said, but I like it. Jack PS Is my name above better now? >>> Sherm >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >And dorayme gave his life for the sins of us all. But did rise up again, >upon the next day, and did go for a swim, just like always. > John > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PS Is my name above better now? It's still on the wrong end of the post. >>>> Sherm >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>And dorayme gave his life for the sins of us all. But did rise up again, >>upon the next day, and did go for a swim, just like always. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html > Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant. > I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Oh I think we know it well. > The CSE program is the only one I've ever used. Yet you claim to know that it is the best. Sounds familiar. Isn't Albert your real name? Yucca Yucca Sorry I replied to you. I just remembered you are supposed to be in my kill file. I'll fix that now. Jack PS Talk about paranoid. Who's Albert? >> Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant. >> I don't think we are talking about the same thing. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Yucca > PS Talk about paranoid. Who's Albert? Probably referring to me, the developer of CSE HTML Validator. I recommend that you don't listen to the CSE HTML Validator "trash talkers" on this newsgroup. They don't like the product simply because of the name and even ignore the fact that it has included a DTD based validator for quite awhile now so their basis of complaint has been non-existent for quite awhile now. Albert Wiersch >> PS Talk about paranoid. Who's Albert? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Albert Wiersch Forgetting the dtd-based part for now, how does the other (-normal/original) part perform it's validation or checking for markup correctness? I mean what basis or reference or data does it use? SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great Sights and Sounds http://adult.neredbojias.net/ (adult) > Forgetting the dtd-based part for now, how does the other > (-normal/original) > part perform it's validation or checking for markup correctness? I mean > what > basis or reference or data does it use? A combinations of web standards and what works in the real world (with browsers that people actually use). Albert Wiersch >> Forgetting the dtd-based part for now, how does the other >> (-normal/original) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A combinations of web standards and what works in the real world (with > browsers that people actually use). The "what works in the real world" might be most of the fly in the ointment. If ie6 renders some non-standard thing "correctly" from its perspective, is this "valid" (-for ie6, that is)? What supposedly works in the real world may (or may not) be pragmatically correct, but that does not make it intrinsically correct and a validator must be unbiased. The only way markup can be valid is if the organization in authority over it says its valid, Microsoft notwithstanding. SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great Sights and Sounds http://adult.neredbojias.net/ (adult) > The "what works in the real world" might be most of the fly in the > ointment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > can be valid is if the organization in authority over it says its valid, > Microsoft notwithstanding. Most people want their HTML to display well in real-world browsers and that is the main purpose of CSE HTML Validator. When "non-standard" constructs are used, CSE HTML Validator will notify the developer. The developer can choose to use it anyway or can change the message to an error message and decide not to use it. CSE HTML Validator leaves it up to the developer to decide how they want their site to be. What good is a standard if it's not followed in the real world? What good is a web page that is designed to the standards if it doesn't work in real-world browsers? CSE HTML Validator tries to let developers know about issues such as these: 1. Constructs that work in the real-world but are not standards compliant. 2. Standards compliant constructs that don't work with real-world browsers. Again, the developer gets to choose how to handle these issues with regards to accepting them anyway or removing them. The new version which should be released today, will add JavaScript linting and PHP syntax checking in addition to CSS, link, spelling, accessibility, and search engine checking. All with one click or key-press. And if you want, throw in nsgmls messages into the mix (again, all with one key or key-press). So it's very useful! Albert Wiersch >> The "what works in the real world" might be most of the fly in the >> ointment. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Again, the developer gets to choose how to handle these issues with regards > to accepting them anyway or removing them. I'm amazed by how many times you've offered responses like these to objections that no one has raised, while ignoring the fact that none of this has anything to do whatsoever with what the technical term "validator" means, the objection that *has* been raised. > I'm amazed by how many times you've offered responses like these to > objections that no one has raised, while ignoring the fact that none of > this has anything to do whatsoever with what the technical term > "validator" means, the objection that *has* been raised. I've addressed that objection multiple times. I don't see the need to continually repeat it in every message. Albert Wiersch >> I'm amazed by how many times you've offered responses like these to >> objections that no one has raised, while ignoring the fact that none of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've addressed that objection multiple times. I don't see the need to > continually repeat it in every message. What's the point of repeating information that *doesn't* address the objection every time the objection is mentioned? Your responses that do address the objection that's been raised haven't done anything to undermine that objection. > What good is a standard if it's not followed in the real world? Why bother having stands, eh? > What good is > a web page that is designed to the standards if it doesn't work in > real-world browsers? CSE HTML Validator tries to let developers know about > issues such as these: > > 1. Constructs that work in the real-world but are not standards compliant. Because *those* constructs are as subject to change at the whim of the browser author and your page may be break in the future[1] (We are talking about MSIE right?) > 2. Standards compliant constructs that don't work with real-world browsers. Again, we are talking about MSIE right? New flash Albert: MS is supposedly pushing towards getting IE 8 standards compliant. Whether they are successful on not for IE 8, (they may get it right for 9, 10 or 11), but the point is your "real world validation" only prolongs the bad practice of using proprietary constructs instead of striving to be standards compliant. It give the ignorant the false sense of security that their pages are properly constructed and that is the real harm of your product. SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > New flash Albert: MS is supposedly pushing towards getting IE 8 standards > compliant. Whether they are successful on not for IE 8, (they may get it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of security that their pages are properly constructed and that is the real > harm of your product. How can it give the developer the sense that it is properly constructed when CSE HTML Validator tells the developer that it is not standard? There are pros and cons of non-standard constructs. The pros and cons should be weighted according to the developer's needs to determine how to handle specific situations. CSE HTML Validator lets developers do this and decide how to handle these situations by notifying them of potential problems. A DTD validator offers little or no choice in the matter. Albert Wiersch >> New flash Albert: MS is supposedly pushing towards getting IE 8 standards >> compliant. Whether they are successful on not for IE 8, (they may get it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > There are pros and cons of non-standard constructs. What are the pros? Can you provide some actual examples of non-standard constructs that you would advise using? >>> New flash Albert: MS is supposedly pushing towards getting IE 8 standards >>> compliant. Whether they are successful on not for IE 8, (they may get it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What are the pros? Can you provide some actual examples of non-standard > constructs that you would advise using? The use of the <wbr> tag has sometimes been recommended here. >>>> New flash Albert: MS is supposedly pushing towards getting IE 8 standards >>>> compliant. Whether they are successful on not for IE 8, (they may get it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The use of the <wbr> tag has sometimes been recommended here. Yes I was thinking of that one. There are a couple more like that too. But I'm interested to know what are the ones CSE recommends. >> There are pros and cons of non-standard constructs. > > What are the pros? Can you provide some actual examples of non-standard > constructs that you would advise using? The "pros" are reflected in his bank account ;-) other than that there is not any advantage to a real web developer that wishes for his page to work both for today and tomorrow. BTW, if done properly a page can be standards compliant, not be support by IE but still be usable in IE by properly degrading... Then when|if MS gets their act together the page will display constantly among all browsers... SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > What are the pros? Can you provide some actual examples of non-standard > constructs that you would advise using? I'm busy with a major new CSE HTML Validator release today and don't wish to partake of detailed discussions on this forum when it is unlikely to do any good and when there are so many vocal "CSE HTML Validator" bashers concentrated in this group. However, I will say that CSE HTML Validator recommends using standard approaches whenever possible. It seems some non-standard markup is recommended in this forum when there is no standard way... do all those people get bashed? Hope not. Thanks, Albert Wiersch > It seems some non-standard markup is recommended in this forum when there is > no standard way... do all those people get bashed? Hope not. This is the House of Bashing. It is a darkly lit alley where the unsuspecting are mugged, where novicide is committed. It is a microcosm of the world's injustice. It exists to mirror and indulge in everything that is wrong and childish. It is a clearing house, a purgatory that administers the road to the killfile. It is a place where people are accused of dishonesty, plagiarism, drug taking, of insanity. It is the seat of the silent treatment. I would not miss it for a universe. Signaturedorayme >> What are the pros? Can you provide some actual examples of non-standard >> constructs that you would advise using? > > I'm busy with a major new CSE HTML Validator release today and don't wish to > partake of detailed discussions on this forum when it is unlikely to do any > good I realize that by "good" you mean anything that promotes you and your product, but even then, it might do some good: we might bash you less (one of the things you were originally bashed for is that all you ever do is promote your product which we already told you we don't like and are sick of hearing about); and you would be quite likely to learn some useful new things to build into the linter. > and when there are so many vocal "CSE HTML Validator" bashers > concentrated in this group. Where you can't delete their posts. > However, I will say that CSE HTML Validator recommends using standard > approaches whenever possible. Except the ones it reports as errors. > It seems some non-standard markup is recommended in this forum when there is > no standard way... do all those people get bashed? I Hope not. Hey! I haven't even bashed you for recommending non-standard markup yet. >I'm busy with a major new CSE HTML Validator release today and don't wish to >partake of detailed discussions on this forum when it is unlikely to do any >good and when there are so many vocal "CSE HTML Validator" bashers >concentrated in this group. Perhaps you might want to consider why that is. I, for example, find little or no reason to "bash" any other software product that I do not use. So why do I "bash" yours? Could it be the dishonest advertising? SignatureGuy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> >> The "what works in the real world" might be most of the fly in the >> ointment. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 1. Constructs that work in the real-world but are not standards compliant. > 2. Standards compliant constructs that don't work with real-world browsers. OK can you provide us with a few examples of some "constructs" in each of those two categories that CSE reports? > OK can you provide us with a few examples of some "constructs" in each > of those two categories that CSE reports? Sorry, no. I don't have a compiled list of these example available and don't see the worth of posting any example here. If you are truly and genuinely interested in a non-critical manner, then feel free to post the question in our forum: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/CSEForum/index.php Thanks, Albert Wiersch >> OK can you provide us with a few examples of some "constructs" in each >> of those two categories that CSE reports? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > our forum: > http://www.htmlvalidator.com/CSEForum/index.php I'm not going to post anything to your forum. But if you want to post anything here that's about HTML or related things, and don't mention your "validator" or try to sell anything, then I for one won't bash you. >> The "what works in the real world" might be most of the fly in the >> ointment. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Validator leaves it up to the developer to decide how they want their > site to be. Well ok, if I understand that right, it seems pretty reasonable to me. If the software identifies any & all non-standard/non-valid markup, I don't think calling it a "validator" is too much of a stretch. > What good is a standard if it's not followed in the real world? What > good is a web page that is designed to the standards if it doesn't work > in real-world browsers? CSE HTML Validator tries to let developers know > about issues such as these: Fine, but that is essentially irrelevant to the premise of it being a "validator" by strict definition. Many standards don't work in ie but that doesn't mean that non-standard substitutes should be promoted as a "valid workaround". However, there are valid alternate methods such as conditional comments which might be mentioned to advantage. > 1. Constructs that work in the real-world but are not standards > compliant. 2. Standards compliant constructs that don't work with > real-world browsers. > > Again, the developer gets to choose how to handle these issues with > regards to accepting them anyway or removing them. As I said, if non-valid markup is identified, I have no problem with it. SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great Sights and Sounds http://adult.neredbojias.net/ (adult) Albert. Thanks for replying to this almost out of control topic. I think I pretty well explained some of my Validator confusion in my summery, but I'll say again here. Thanks for providing a Validator program that filled my needs. It's what I needed and does the trick. Jack PS, what these guys may in fact have done is earn you more money. I'm going to check out your PRO CSE version. I just may give it a try. >> PS Talk about paranoid. Who's Albert? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Albert Wiersch > Thanks for providing a Validator program that filled my needs. > It's what I needed and does the trick. Great. You are very welcome. > PS, what these guys may in fact have done is earn you more money. I'm > going to check out your PRO CSE version. I just may give it a try. I don't know what edition you are using, but the standard and pro editions include DTD based validation, if that is what you want, but you may find it much less useful than you may think it is for the discussion about it here. Real browsers like IE and Firefox do not use SGML parsers. Albert Wiersch Albert Thanks for the information. I use version 8.0403 Jack >> Thanks for providing a Validator program that filled my needs. >> It's what I needed and does the trick. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Albert Wiersch > I think I pretty well explained some of my Validator confusion in my > summery, but I'll say again here. Oh, I wanted to suggest you take a look at this link. I think you may find it interesting. DTD parsers are very limited in the problems they can find: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/whycseisbetter.html Since CSE HTML Validator's own engine is not a DTD based validator, it is not limited to only what DTD based HTML validators can find. However, liked stated before, one can use a DTD based validator with the std/pro editions if you still want to. Albert Wiersch In alt.html on Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:33:51 -0500, Albert Wiersch <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: >> PS Talk about paranoid. Who's Albert? > > Probably referring to me, the developer of CSE HTML Validator. Is there a version for Linux available? If not, why not? SignaturePJR :-) slrn newsreader (v0.9.9): http://slrn.sourceforge.net/ extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/ newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator > Is there a version for Linux available? Sorry, there is no native Linux version available. > If not, why not? I can not yet justify the development effort it would require. I'd like to have Mac and Linux versions but, at this point, I do not find it practical (justifiable) to do so. The Windows version keeps up busy enough. :-) Thanks, Albert Wiersch > Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant. > I don't think we are talking about the same thing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My website has well over 1000 pages with over 2000 images. Believe > me, if I was using a bad Validator, I would know it. Korpela is inclined to be critical, but his description is accurate and reasonably fair. Wiersch insists his product does now include a real validator, which may be true. But be very wary of his claims. All this stuff about "what matters on real web pages" etc.-- he's very long on marketing and short on technical detail. The last time we had a round of CSE-bashing here someone tried it and immediately found a very straightforward bug in it (it reported some valid HTML as invalid). Wiersch denied it was a bug or that it mattered in the real world or some rubbish. A real programmer would just have thanked him and fixed it. [...] [...] >>Previously the author of that fake validator used to advertize it in Usenet >>groups, without hardly ever giving any other contribution. People used to >>explain (to novices - the author did not care, since he has decided to sell >>his product dishonestly) that it is not a validator at all and gives plain >>wrong error messages, in addition to misleading and irrelevant warnings >>(with some real error messages scattered around just to confuse us). [...] > The last time we had a round of CSE-bashing here someone tried it and > immediately found a very straightforward bug in it (it reported some > valid HTML as invalid). Wiersch denied it was a bug or that it mattered > in the real world or some rubbish. A real programmer would just have > thanked him and fixed it. When real bugs are reported, then they are fixed. I somewhat remember this issue and, if I remember correctly, what the program reported was indeed correct and worked as it should, but it didn't fit into someone's definition so they called it "bogus". If you need more proof that reported bugs are fixed and addressed, then just check our forums: http://www.htmlvalidator.com/CSEForum/index.php However, somehow I don't think any proof or evidence will be sufficient for some people. Albert >> The last time we had a round of CSE-bashing here someone tried it and >> immediately found a very straightforward bug in it (it reported some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > correct and worked as it should, but it didn't fit into someone's definition > so they called it "bogus". Well if _I_ remember correctly the issue was that CSE reported an unclosed <dt> or <dl> as an error (the closing tag is optional). So if by "someone's" you mean "the" then no it didn't fit the definition of HTML and you could quite accurately call it "bogus". > If you need more proof that reported bugs are fixed and addressed, then just > check our forums: > http://www.htmlvalidator.com/CSEForum/index.php Thank you for the invitation to go and bash your product in your forums, but I don't think I can be bothered. > Well if _I_ remember correctly the issue was that CSE reported an > unclosed <dt> or <dl> as an error (the closing tag is optional). OK, that is because CSE HTML Validator is designed to enforce better markup in these cases than DTD validators. This is by design and not a bug. > Thank you for the invitation to go and bash your product in your forums, > but I don't think I can be bothered. Yes, it would be a waste of time because any unhelpful bashing would be deleted. The CSE HTML Validator forums are for friendly, positive use that give benefit to others. Albert Wiersch >> Well if _I_ remember correctly the issue was that CSE reported an >> unclosed <dt> or <dl> as an error (the closing tag is optional). > > OK, that is because CSE HTML Validator is designed to enforce better markup > in these cases than DTD validators. This is by design and not a bug. Oops, what is this? If there was any implication that at all that the missing tag was an error in validity, your detractors are correct. Incidentally, one person's "better markup" is another's "pure shlock". Who decides what is "better" and why? SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great Sights and Sounds http://adult.neredbojias.net/ (adult) >>> Well if _I_ remember correctly the issue was that CSE reported an >>> unclosed <dt> or <dl> as an error (the closing tag is optional). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oops, what is this? If there was any implication that at all that the > missing tag was an error in validity, your detractors are correct. The error message wasn't "Unclosed <dt> is standard but worse". It was "Error: missing </dt>" or something similar. > Incidentally, one person's "better markup" is another's "pure shlock". Who > decides what is "better" and why? Albert decides what is better. Why? He won't say. You are welcome to take it up in his forums which he moderates. In the case of unclosed <dt>, it looks like he decided it was better because that was easier than fixing his broken parser which got it wrong. >>>> Well if _I_ remember correctly the issue was that CSE reported an >>>> unclosed <dt> or <dl> as an error (the closing tag is optional). [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > <dt>, it looks like he decided it was better because that was easier > than fixing his broken parser which got it wrong. I see. IOW, past stubbornesses have lead to the besmirching of his reputation despite the (apparent) fact that the program is a decent "checker" of some sort. That's kind of pathetic really. It seemed like the poor guy was being over-enthusiastically persecuted, but in light of the facts... SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great Sights and Sounds http://adult.neredbojias.net/ (adult) >>>>> Well if _I_ remember correctly the issue was that CSE reported an >>>>> unclosed <dt> or <dl> as an error (the closing tag is optional). [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the poor guy was being over-enthusiastically persecuted, but in light of > the facts... Guy Macon put it very well in his last post in this thread. It's all part of a picture of a product that's a throwback to the bad old days of |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message