|
|
Posted by Franklin on 08/11/07 01:59
On 11 Aug 00:51, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1@gmai.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:02:02 -0500, Sherm Pendley
> <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
>
>> 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--
>>
>
> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term
> is commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML
> documents or RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined
> format or language. That is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE
> does a better job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light,
> whereas CSE is showing me several lines of syntax that can be
> corrected and one error.
>
Where is Mr Bottoms's quotation taken from?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|