|
|
Posted by Albert Wiersch on 04/17/07 20:41
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Yx7Vh.38247$IY.36590@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
> Are you pretending to be so stupid that you did not understand the
> statements that described that the "CSE HTML Validator" claimed a page to
> be valid when it in fact had dozens of reportable markup errors, i.e. was
> invalid in the sense that is relevant in HTML context?
I don't think I'm the stupid one here. CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim
pages to be "valid". It simply finds potential issues based on real-world
browsers. It doesn't generate as many worthless (useless in real-life)
"errors" as real validators.
> You have repeatedly claimed that your commercial product, "CSE HTML
> Validator", is better than the free validators around.
Because it is in a many number of ways.
> Once again, it was pointed out that it is much _less_ and even claims that
> a page is valid when it is not.
Once again you do not know what you're talking about because CSE HTML
Validator doesn't claim pages are "valid".
Albert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|