Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > cellpadding and cellspacing problem

Reply
Thread Tools

cellpadding and cellspacing problem

 
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

> Saying (or implying) that a "real" DTD based validator is the only
> type of checking worth doing is what is truly misleading.


It would. And it is disgustingly dishonest that you present, for your
commercial purposes, my view as if I had written something like that. Surely
you know better, if you have read what I have written about validation, and
you have hardly managed to avoid that because you keep commenting on it.
Thus, you make deliberate lies.

I have repeatedly said that a good checking tool that checks _many_ aspects
of web page quality would be very useful. The product you are selling is
nothing of the kind, though. If you cannot perform a simple and fairly
trivial part of the checking correctly, how could you do something
essentially more complicated? Even if some of the checks it performs are in
the right direction, users will have no way of distinguishing them from
bogus. What's the point of getting a hundred "error messages" when half of
them are just nonsense, even if some of the rest relate to some real error?

> If there is
> any "false" information I or the product gives out, then please feel
> free to bring it to my attention,


You have repeatedly expressed your willingness to ignore such notes.

You keep selling your phony "validator", and you keep confusing people about
validation (they're surely confused enough without your efforts). The name
seems to be important to you, despite its incorrectness. Ergo, it is
important to you to mislead potential customers.

And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled someone.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Albert Wiersch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007

"Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news_0Vh.37957$(E-Mail Removed) .fi...
>
> It would. And it is disgustingly dishonest that you present, for your
> commercial purposes, my view as if I had written something like that.
> Surely you know better, if you have read what I have written about
> validation, and you have hardly managed to avoid that because you keep
> commenting on it. Thus, you make deliberate lies.


I've read your posts and to me at least, they imply that people should use a
"real" validator instead of CSE HTML Validator. They imply that there's no
use for a checker like CSE HTML Validator.

> I have repeatedly said that a good checking tool that checks _many_
> aspects of web page quality would be very useful. The product you are
> selling is nothing of the kind, though. If you cannot perform a simple and
> fairly trivial part of the checking correctly, how could you do something
> essentially more complicated? Even if some of the checks it performs are
> in the right direction, users will have no way of distinguishing them from
> bogus. What's the point of getting a hundred "error messages" when half of
> them are just nonsense, even if some of the rest relate to some real
> error?


I suppose you don't know CSE HTML Validator if you think it doesn't perform
checks on _many_aspects of a web page. It certainly does. I don't know what
you are referring to as "bogus" except that you think the name is "bogus".
Otherwise please let me know of something specific it says that is truly
bogus.

Since you repeatedly say that a good checking tool checks _many_ aspects of
a web page, why do you continue to bash CSE HTML Validator? Now that it
includes a "real" validator (std/pro) on top of all the other checks it
does, I would think that you would be recommending it left and right!

As for having a hundred "error messages" when have are nonsense, please tell
me what messages are nonsense? Yes there may be some "cascading" errors that
may cause confusion... no checker is perfect and some people will always get
confused, especially people who are new to HTML and just learning it.

>
>> If there is
>> any "false" information I or the product gives out, then please feel
>> free to bring it to my attention,

>
> You have repeatedly expressed your willingness to ignore such notes.


I have only ignored the ones that I deemed weren't useful. Obviously it
wouldn't make sense to act on every note since not every note is useful. By
useful I mean that it will result in a positive improvement in the product
and in what people obtain from it.

> You keep selling your phony "validator", and you keep confusing people
> about validation (they're surely confused enough without your efforts).
> The name seems to be important to you, despite its incorrectness. Ergo, it
> is important to you to mislead potential customers.


I wouldn't blame me for the confusion... DTD based validators are much more
confusing that CSE HTML Validator. It seems misleading to me when the W3C
calls documents that have a lot of problems "valid". I have an example on my
site of a page with many problems, but "real" validators don't find any of
the issues. That sure sounds like it could misleading!

> And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
> discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled someone.


Sorry, I don't see how it misled the original poster. The only confusion I
potentially see is that the OP may not have known that just because a page
doesn't have problems (as detected by a checker) that it doesn't mean it
will render as intended. Also, like I said before, the W3C misleads the same
way, by saying a page is valid when it doesn't render as the user intended
or still contains problem. With that logic, then all checkers and validators
would be misleading.

Albert


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

>> And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
>> discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled
>> someone.

>
> Sorry, I don't see how it misled the original poster. The only
> confusion I potentially see is that the OP may not have known that
> just because a page doesn't have problems (as detected by a checker)
> that it doesn't mean it will render as intended. Also, like I said
> before, the W3C misleads the same way, by saying a page is valid when
> it doesn't render as the user intended or still contains problem.
> With that logic, then all checkers and validators would be misleading.


Babble, babble.

Are you pretending to be so stupid that you did not understand the
statements that described that the "CSE HTML Validator" claimed a page to be
valid when it in fact had dozens of reportable markup errors, i.e. was
invalid in the sense that is relevant in HTML context?

You have repeatedly claimed that your commercial product, "CSE HTML
Validator", is better than the free validators around. Once again, it was
pointed out that it is much _less_ and even claims that a page is valid when
it is not.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Albert Wiersch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007

"Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Yx7Vh.38247$(E-Mail Removed). fi...
>
> Are you pretending to be so stupid that you did not understand the
> statements that described that the "CSE HTML Validator" claimed a page to
> be valid when it in fact had dozens of reportable markup errors, i.e. was
> invalid in the sense that is relevant in HTML context?


I don't think I'm the stupid one here. CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim
pages to be "valid". It simply finds potential issues based on real-world
browsers. It doesn't generate as many worthless (useless in real-life)
"errors" as real validators.

> You have repeatedly claimed that your commercial product, "CSE HTML
> Validator", is better than the free validators around.


Because it is in a many number of ways.

> Once again, it was pointed out that it is much _less_ and even claims that
> a page is valid when it is not.


Once again you do not know what you're talking about because CSE HTML
Validator doesn't claim pages are "valid".

Albert


 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007
Albert Wiersch wrote:

> CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...


Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?

Suggest you change its name to:

CSE HTML Simply-Finds-Potential-Issues-Based-On-Real-World-Browsers.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
 
Reply With Quote
 
Albert Wiersch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hRaVh.53663$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
>> CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...

>
> Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?


Because it finds problems in web pages, which is what people want when they
look for a validator.

>
> Suggest you change its name to:
>
> CSE HTML Simply-Finds-Potential-Issues-Based-On-Real-World-Browsers.


I think that's a bit too long.

Albert


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben C
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007
On 2007-04-17, Albert Wiersch <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:hRaVh.53663$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>
>>> CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...

>>
>> Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?

>
> Because it finds problems in web pages, which is what people want when they
> look for a validator.
>
>>
>> Suggest you change its name to:
>>
>> CSE HTML Simply-Finds-Potential-Issues-Based-On-Real-World-Browsers.

>
> I think that's a bit too long.


Something like "HTML Lint" would be the traditional name for such a
tool.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Rundle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2007

"Albert Wiersch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:hRaVh.53663$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Albert Wiersch wrote:
> >
> >> CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...

> >
> > Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?

>
> Because it finds problems in web pages, which is what people want when

they
> look for a validator.
>


No. What I (at least) want is for a validator to tell me what's valid.

--
Richard



 
Reply With Quote
 
Albert Wiersch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2007

"Richard Rundle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> No. What I (at least) want is for a validator to tell me what's valid.


If you want to know if a document is technically valid, then you can use the
included DTD based validator in the standard and pro editions of CSE HTML
Validator. Of course if you only use that, then you could be missing quite a
few issues that can't be found by a DTD based validator.

Albert


 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2007
On 13 Apr, 16:43, "Albert Wiersch" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in messagenews:yTvTh.35223$(E-Mail Removed) nalahti.fi...


> > Unfortunately, he used a product that is dishonestly sold as a validator
> > but isn't, the infamous "CSE HTML Validator". His confusion is
> > understandable; the phoney validator's business isn't.

>
> It's only "phony" if you strictly limit your definition...


So Albert, your snake oil "validator" is perfect and the OP didn't
really have a problem?
What was it - evil Finnish Pixies?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
cellspacing und cellpadding =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGluIFDDtnBwaW5n?= HTML 6 08-14-2005 10:36 AM
cellpadding - css Jan Faerber HTML 4 12-08-2004 01:54 PM
CSS equiv for cellspacing & cellpadding Todd Cary HTML 12 09-18-2004 08:37 PM
Possible to set table cellspacing; cellpadding in CSS? Gnarlodious HTML 2 04-10-2004 06:31 AM
Unwanted cellpadding in IE6 tables? Lorne Cameron HTML 9 06-27-2003 11:58 AM



Advertisments