|
|
Posted by Bear Bottoms on 08/11/07 03:35
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:00:05 -0500, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>
wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1@gmai.com> writes:
>
>> Well when I think of validating the code on my website, as an end-user
>> I think of er, validating the code on my webpage.
>
> A validator does indeed validate the code on your web page. But the terms
> "valid," "validate," and "validator" all have domain-specific,
> specialized
> meanings when used in the context of SGML and XML authoring, like we're
> doing here. These meanings are not as broad or generic as the dictionary
> definitions.
>
> If you ask a musician and a banker to define the word "note," you'll get
> two very different definitions in response. Likewise if you ask a butcher
> and a prison warden to define "shank," or a diver and a politician to
> define "platform," or a mechanic and a disk jockey to define "tune."
> Domain-specific definitions for common words are not a unique concept; we
> use them every day.
>
> CSE is not a validator according to the correct, domain-specific use of
> the word. If you think it is, then you have in fact been misled - whether
> you're aware of it or not - by the author's incorrect use of the term.
>
>> then I need CSE to do what more it can do for me than W3C.
>
> The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is
> calling
> it a validator, when it's not.
>
> sherm--
>
Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
software authors. If his program validates the code on my website, then
his software is a validator in my book. Grey Poupon anyone?
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|