|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/18/06 20:54
Albert Wiersch wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4pnhi1Fit9uhU1@individual.net...
>>> I don't see how that makes sense. I think a better analogy would be:
>>> "That's like saying toothbrushes are great tools that should always be
>>> used but they're not perfect because they can't guarantee that all plaque
>>> was removed and that your mouth is perfectly clean."
>> No, because while plaque removal is one of the goals of brushing one's
>> teeth, the features whose absence you consider to be imperfections in
>> the validators have nothing to do with validation. "Validation", no
>> matter how many times you say otherwise, has a specific definition in
>> this context because it's defined in the specification by virtue of
>> which this context even exists. The information provided by your tool,
>> no matter how useful it may be, falls outside of the purview of
>> validation.
>
> Well, it depends on your definition of validation
And again, there is *an* applicable definition of validation, not "your"
definition versus "my" definition.
> and why people validate...
Validating is what it is. Either people want to or they don't. If they
want to do something else as well, then they can do that, but then
they're doing that *instead of* validating.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|