|
|
Posted by Albert Wiersch on 04/17/07 16:40
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:D_0Vh.37957$u85.27292@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
> 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've read your posts and to me at least, they imply that people should use a
"real" validator instead of CSE HTML Validator. They imply that there's no
use for a checker like CSE HTML Validator.
> 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?
I suppose you don't know CSE HTML Validator if you think it doesn't perform
checks on _many_aspects of a web page. It certainly does. I don't know what
you are referring to as "bogus" except that you think the name is "bogus".
Otherwise please let me know of something specific it says that is truly
bogus.
Since you repeatedly say that a good checking tool checks _many_ aspects of
a web page, why do you continue to bash CSE HTML Validator? Now that it
includes a "real" validator (std/pro) on top of all the other checks it
does, I would think that you would be recommending it left and right!
As for having a hundred "error messages" when have are nonsense, please tell
me what messages are nonsense? Yes there may be some "cascading" errors that
may cause confusion... no checker is perfect and some people will always get
confused, especially people who are new to HTML and just learning it.
>
>> 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.
I have only ignored the ones that I deemed weren't useful. Obviously it
wouldn't make sense to act on every note since not every note is useful. By
useful I mean that it will result in a positive improvement in the product
and in what people obtain from it.
> 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.
I wouldn't blame me for the confusion... DTD based validators are much more
confusing that CSE HTML Validator. It seems misleading to me when the W3C
calls documents that have a lot of problems "valid". I have an example on my
site of a page with many problems, but "real" validators don't find any of
the issues. That sure sounds like it could misleading!
> And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
> discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled someone.
Sorry, I don't see how it misled the original poster. The only confusion I
potentially see is that the OP may not have known that just because a page
doesn't have problems (as detected by a checker) that it doesn't mean it
will render as intended. Also, like I said before, the W3C misleads the same
way, by saying a page is valid when it doesn't render as the user intended
or still contains problem. With that logic, then all checkers and validators
would be misleading.
Albert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|