|
|
Posted by Joel Shepherd on 10/04/06 15:19
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> > I tested your theory out. I went to w3.org and saved their (flawlessly
> > validating) page on my desk top. I then opened it using FP, made a few
> > changes, to the text, then saved it. MIRACULUSLY when I validated the
> > page again it STILL had no errors.
>
> That's not a test.
You mean "That's not a test that satisfies my prejudices"?
Sure it's a test. It's repeatable, it's verifiable, it answered a
well-defined question with a yes/no answer: can one edit a valid (and I
believe in this case, non-trivial) web page in FP and have the result be
valid HTML. The answer is yes.
If FP had instead spewed out invalid HTML, I'm quite sure you wouldn't
have objected to the method used to test the theory: right?
It's not an exhaustive test, but if you do any reading outside these
news groups you might notice that most experiments _aren't_. That
doesn't mean "They're not experiments". This particular experiment
doesn't _prove_ FP always preserves valid HTML either, but sadly such
proof may be beyond our grasp, at least as a practical matter.
But it would take _only one_ test to prove that FP sometimes twists
valid into invalid markup. Feel free to demonstrate it.
--
Joel.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|