«

"Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
news:Xns96B5E741AA955jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
>
>> but it should be clear how limited a real validator is
>
> It performs a well-defined job, as opposite to looking here and there and
> making proposals and issuing error messages based on someone's opinions.

Which is fine if you want to limit yourself to what is "well-defined" and
ignore other potential issues like bgcolor="dfsdgfdsfgdfg".

>
>> and that HTML linters and checkers can find many issues that real
>> validators can't.
>
> You mean like the non-issue that your phoney validator reports as an
> error?
> It's sad that there are no good HTML linters (actually never were), but
> it's probably too late now. That, however, is not a reason to pay for a
> broken checker called, in an intentionally misleading way, a validator.

It seems like you've never used my validator, or don't understand it (or,
more likely, you can't get over the fact that it doesn't conform to your
chosen definition of validator). If it points out an issue that is not
really an issue, then feel free to bring it to my attention. I may change
it. You can also configure it as you want on a per-message basis.

>
>> This is just one of the cases where a "non-real" validator found what
>> you would call a "futile" attribute. Obviously it is not good form to
>> use futile attributes.
>
> That's your opinion. It is based on limited experience with the practice
> of
> HTML authoring. And it is certainly objectively wrong to call a futile
> attribute an error when it in fact conforms to any relevant specification.

I don't limit the definition of "error" to what is only technically wrong.
Again, it just seems you have a problem with the name of the program and
"error" which means, according to the dictionary "a mistake" or "deviation
from what is correct", among other definitions.

> I see little reason to remove futile attributes, if a document contains
> them as by-products of some HTML generator or as holdovers from some
> previous version of the document where they were not futile, or maybe in
> preparation for the next version that will drop the "f" from futility.

Then you can disable the message in CSE HTML Validator and use all the
futile attributes you want in hopes that they become useful, or for whatever
other reason you want.

Anyhow, I'm not going to continue this argument. It's lost its usefulness to
the group.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

"Albert Wiersch" < m> wrote in
message news:OK-dnZfKj6YXVZ7eRVn-...
>
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B5E741AA955jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
> >
> >> but it should be clear how limited a real validator is
> >
> > It performs a well-defined job, as opposite to looking here and there
and
> > making proposals and issuing error messages based on someone's opinions.
>
> Which is fine if you want to limit yourself to what is "well-defined" and
> ignore other potential issues like bgcolor="dfsdgfdsfgdfg".
>
> >
> >> and that HTML linters and checkers can find many issues that real
> >> validators can't.
> >
> > You mean like the non-issue that your phoney validator reports as an
> > error?
> > It's sad that there are no good HTML linters (actually never were), but
> > it's probably too late now. That, however, is not a reason to pay for a
> > broken checker called, in an intentionally misleading way, a validator.
>
> It seems like you've never used my validator, or don't understand it (or,
> more likely, you can't get over the fact that it doesn't conform to your
> chosen definition of validator). If it points out an issue that is not
> really an issue, then feel free to bring it to my attention. I may change
> it. You can also configure it as you want on a per-message basis.
>
> >
> >> This is just one of the cases where a "non-real" validator found what
> >> you would call a "futile" attribute. Obviously it is not good form to
> >> use futile attributes.
> >
> > That's your opinion. It is based on limited experience with the practice
> > of
> > HTML authoring. And it is certainly objectively wrong to call a futile
> > attribute an error when it in fact conforms to any relevant
specification.
>
> I don't limit the definition of "error" to what is only technically wrong.
> Again, it just seems you have a problem with the name of the program and
> "error" which means, according to the dictionary "a mistake" or "deviation
> from what is correct", among other definitions.
>
> > I see little reason to remove futile attributes, if a document contains
> > them as by-products of some HTML generator or as holdovers from some
> > previous version of the document where they were not futile, or maybe in
> > preparation for the next version that will drop the "f" from futility.
>
> Then you can disable the message in CSE HTML Validator and use all the
> futile attributes you want in hopes that they become useful, or for
whatever
> other reason you want.
>
> Anyhow, I'm not going to continue this argument. It's lost its usefulness
to
> the group.
>

On the contrary. If it's not a validator, just don't call it a validator.
Not hard, is it ?

--
Richard

"Albert Wiersch" < m>
wrote:

> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B5E741AA955jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
>>
>>> but it should be clear how limited a real validator is
>>
>> It performs a well-defined job, as opposite to looking here and there
>> and making proposals and issuing error messages based on someone's
>> opinions.
>
> Which is fine if you want to limit yourself to what is "well-defined"
> and ignore other potential issues like bgcolor="dfsdgfdsfgdfg".

I'd rather have a validator that performs some useful checking objectively
than a phoney validator that cannot be trusted.

>> You mean like the non-issue that your phoney validator reports as an
>> error? It's sad that there are no good HTML linters (actually never
>> were), but it's probably too late now. That, however, is not a reason
>> to pay for a broken checker called, in an intentionally misleading
>> way, a validator.
>
> It seems like you've never used my validator,

As I have told previously, I have used it enough to see what it is, and you
yourself provide further evidence.

> or don't understand it

Which one of us is knows HTML, seriously?

> (or, more likely, you can't get over the fact that it doesn't conform
> to your chosen definition of validator).

I wouldn't get over your calling a cow a horse, no matter how often you
claim it's just about my private definition of a horse.

> If it points out an issue that
> is not really an issue, then feel free to bring it to my attention. I
> may change it.

How noble.

Now you have confirmed that the product you sell produces just messages
according to your taste.

> I don't limit the definition of "error" to what is only technically
> wrong.

Why does this remind me of the question how to define "sex"? You seem to
use the word "technically" just to call a cow a horse. After all, we should
not be limited to the technical definition of a horse, so if a cow sells
better as a horse...

Well, it's just part of your making your personal opinions the ultimate
criterion on HTML.

> Anyhow, I'm not going to continue this argument.

You never answered why you keep calling a non-validator a validator, except
by admitting that it is not "technically" (i.e., in reality) a validator.

> It's lost its usefulness to the group.

Au contraire, it is useful to people to know what your product really is.
We can also conjecture that it is pointless to try to teach you HTML by
answering your questions that you apparently ask in order to work on the
product just to add a few additional "error messages".

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

"Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
news:Xns96B6ED74798D1jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
> "Albert Wiersch" < m>
> wrote:
>
> You never answered why you keep calling a non-validator a validator,
> except
> by admitting that it is not "technically" (i.e., in reality) a validator.

I've answered it many times. This is an example of why I'm not going to
continue to talk about it - it goes no where. See my previous messages for
why it is called a validator. Look up the word validate in the dictionary
(note that there is more than one definition).

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

With neither quill nor qualm, Albert Wiersch quothed:

>
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B6ED74798D1jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
> > "Albert Wiersch" < m>
> > wrote:
> >
> > You never answered why you keep calling a non-validator a validator,
> > except
> > by admitting that it is not "technically" (i.e., in reality) a validator.
>
> I've answered it many times. This is an example of why I'm not going to
> continue to talk about it - it goes no where. See my previous messages for
> why it is called a validator. Look up the word validate in the dictionary
> (note that there is more than one definition).

Hey, I might be a smartass and make immature posts on purpose, but you 2
sound like little kids obliviously.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.