|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 04/17/07 10:08
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/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|