|
|
Posted by dorayme on 02/16/07 02:54
In article <0001HW.C1FA6D88000E4AB5B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:17:55 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article
> <doraymeRidThis-D5990E.12175516022007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.C1FA5A300009C20FB022094F@news.supernews.com>,
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Oops, I forgot, validation is apparently useless.
>
> That was my not so good momentary attempt at being a bit cynical!
>
Not to worry... <g>
> > To point out the limitations of validators, what they can and cannot do,
> > what their real purpose is and what you can profitably use them for,
> > should not invite this reaction. It is a rather complicated thing but
> > basically a validator will tell you if a document conforms in certain
> > respects to the declared or assumed standard for that doc in a narrow
> > formal sense. It says nothing about semantics, the meaningfulness,
> > neatness, easy readability or accessibility of your efforts, much less the
> > quality of being easy to upgrade. All these latter mentioned qualities are
> > notoriously difficult for earthling created machines to understand. Not
> > impossible but difficult.
>
> I'll certainly agree that validators are essentially limited to to verifying
> that a site's code adheres to established rules and not on the quality and/or
> neatness and such of the code. But they do provide a hint at how well the
> code will process on standards conforming browsers.
Perhaps a hint taken along with other background information and
knowledge. On its own, it will basically just pick up formal
mistakes and tell you very little. Before you were being very
pessimistic. Now I am saying your are too optimistic. I feel I am
picking on you T... <g>
Validator found mistakes can trigger earthlings to realise that
there are other confusions in their presentation.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|