|
|
Posted by Sherm Pendley on 08/10/07 23:02
Craig <netburgher@REMOVEgmail.com> writes:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch <donotreply@123donotreply123.com> wrote:
>>> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
>>> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>> - -
>>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".
>>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
>>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
>>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.
>>
>> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
>> for.
>>
>>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
>>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
>>
>> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.
>
> Ben or Jukka;
>
> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
> referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
> refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually
> ascribed to the W3C site functions.
It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the definition of the
term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that checks a
document against its DTD. Calling something a validator when it doesn't do
that is dishonest.
Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not being what he
claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that validators
don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself included) who despise
lies on principle, and might have purchased his product if he had marketed
it honestly.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|