Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   HTML (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f31-html.html)
-   -   Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t959538-re-tweet-and-pin-button-attributes-failing-validation.html)

Jukka K. Korpela 04-08-2013 01:35 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
2013-04-08 16:19, lipska the kat wrote:

> I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
> validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
> attributes, the attributes concerned are
>
> data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout


Such attributes are not allowed by any published DTD for HTML. Apart
from the last one, they are all allowed in HTML5 CR, which allows almost
any attribute that starts with "data-" to be used for site-specific
scripting (and styling) purposes, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#...a-*-attributes

> How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an
> href?


I don't see how href relates to this; href is an attribute, not an element.

Anyway, the way to "validate" a document with "data-" attributes (in any
element) is to use http://validator.w3.org or http://validator.nu in
HTML5 mode. You trigger that mode by using

<!doctype html>

at the very start, instead of any other doctype string, or,
alternatively, by selecting HTML5 from the dropdown in the validators'
user interface.

Caveats:
1. HTML5 is work in progress.
2. There is no published document that specifies which variant of HTML5
is actually used by the validators in HTML5 mode. It seems that it's
whatever its authors regard as "current".
3. The validators have (other) bugs, too.
4. Validation is just checking and as such does not improved your page
the least. What matters is that you might find some errors that you can
then fix. So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
warnings, not to get a "clean report"!

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela 04-08-2013 06:37 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
2013-04-08 20:38, lipska the kat wrote:

>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal

>
> You're kidding right?
>
> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.


I wonder if you are kidding. I really don't know.

> Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
> valid. It's meaninless otherwise.


What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
perfect? I hope you are not that misguided. The point is exactly to find
errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Chris F.A. Johnson 04-08-2013 07:11 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
On 2013-04-08, Jim T wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:38:22 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>>On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
>>> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>>>>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>>>
>>>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>>>
>>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal

>>
>>You're kidding right?

>
> Nope. The goal is to get your site to look and work as you intend on
> as many browsers as possible, past, present, and future. It's not
> always possible to achieve that goal with 100% validation.


It's even less likely to be achieved without 100% validation.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
<http://torontowebdesign.cfaj.ca/>

Jukka K. Korpela 04-08-2013 07:30 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
2013-04-08 22:04, lipska the kat wrote:

>> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
>> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.

>
> You must be from some parallel realty,


It seems that our realities are indeed different.

> in my reality, if I want to be
> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
> get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept.


It's simple indeed. Most false ideas are.

> Not sure how
> that makes me misguided.


For example, your text can be complete nonsense, and even ungrammatical,
just in a way that the spelling checker does not catch. With HTML
validation, it should be even more obvious.

>> The point is exactly to find
>> errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.

>
> And what do you do when you have found and fixed your errors?
> You run the validator again don't you.


Probably, to see that I really fixed the issues. That is, in order to
get error messages and warnings. Not in order to feel righteous or to
get a worse-than-nonsense stamp "Valid HTML!" (which anyone and his
brother can use for invalid markup too, and often does).

> What do you do when there are no more errors...


I stop using the validator for now. What is your problem with that idea?

> honestly, I don't know
> why I'm even having this conversation,


This isn't a conversation, really, but to make a wild guess: because you
have no idea of what validation really is and you feel uncomfortable
with that. Well, that's good. But I'm not sure whether you are making
progress.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

dorayme 04-08-2013 11:27 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_MnZ2dnUVZ8l6dnZ2d@bt.com>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!

>
> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.


Maybe it is novel to you but it is quite sensible, the idea is
validation can be a pyrrhic victory. If you get no warnings or errors,
that eliminates a particular set of pitfalls. But there are many other
sets of troubles for which the remedies have nothing to do with formal
validation.

Furthermore, if you do get some warnings, experience can tell you that
eliminating all of them risks losing some desired functionality (in
all or most browsers) unnecessarily (the price of mere validation not
being worth it)

--
dorayme

Tim Streater 04-09-2013 07:27 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_MnZ2dnUVZ8l6dnZ2d@bt.com>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 08/04/13 14:35, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:


> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!

>
> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.


It's the only one that makes any sense. You get some messages, then you
look and see whether they matter or not.

In reading your posts, I'm reminded of someone I worked with some 40
years ago. "Well", he said, "the assembler gave me no error messages or
warnings so I guess it must be correct."

He left quite soon after that.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater 04-09-2013 07:28 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
In article <OfWdndUyMpkSnf7MnZ2dnUVZ7rCdnZ2d@bt.com>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> > neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

>
> [snip]
>
> >>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
> >>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
> >>
> >> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.

> >
> > He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal

>
> You're kidding right?
>
> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
>
> Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
> valid. It's meaninless otherwise.


Ah, now you're getting it. Just because it validates, doesn't mean it's
valid.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater 04-09-2013 07:34 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
In article <R9Wdne-LDvJNif7MnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d@bt.com>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:


> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.

>
> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
> get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure how
> that makes me misguided.


It makes you simple-minded. So it passes the spell checker. Has that
checked grammar? Or the meaning of what you wrote? Or whether there are
homonyms - mmmm no, that's the wrong word, I want the word that refers
to two words spelt differently, sounding the same, but with different
meanings.

Passing the spell-check does *not* guarantee freedom from errors.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater 04-09-2013 09:49 PM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
In article <kk2001$3de$1@dont-email.me>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > Or whether there are homonyms - mmmm no, that's the wrong word, I want
> > the word that refers to two words spelt differently, sounding the same,
> > but with different meanings.

>
> Those are homophones. ;-)


Lessee now, right-mouse on the word ("homophones" in this case), select
"Look up in Dictionary", ...

Well I'll be hornswoggled, so it is. Much obliged.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

dorayme 04-10-2013 09:51 AM

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
 
In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjMnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@bt.com>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 09/04/13 20:34, Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <R9Wdne-LDvJNif7MnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> >
> >> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
> >> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
> >>
> >> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
> >> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if
> >> I get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure
> >> how that makes me misguided.

> >
> > It makes you simple-minded.

>
> Personal attack noted.


Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
text is "free of errors".

--
dorayme


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.