|
|
Posted by Albert Wiersch on 10/18/06 15:32
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:HNcZg.8337$D%.1220@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>
>> As for the original question, HTML validators are great tools that
>> should always be used, but they're not perfect.
>
> Nonsense. They are primitive tools that we use just in lack of more useful
> checkers. Besides, there's really no such thing as "HTML validator". It's
> an SGML validator, or XML validator, or both, and if you use it for HTML
> documents, that's your decision.
Call it a primitive tool if you want. It doesn't matter. A hammer is still a
"primitive" tool but still quite useful.
Have you notified the W3C that there's no such thing as an "HTML Validator"?
It seems they have a link on their front page called "HTML Validator" and
have had that for quite some time. Try searching the web for "HTML
Validator". It seems like you live in your own world with your own
definitions.
> But at least validators are what they claim to be, modulo a few bugs
> perhaps, and not half-baked checkers sold under an intentionally
> misleading name like "CSE HTML Validator".
Again, you continue to say more things that aren't true.
Albert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|