|
|
Posted by Albert Wiersch on 08/11/07 15:23
"Sherm Pendley" <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote in message
news:m2fy2qbbdt.fsf@dot-app.org...
>
> You don't write the book, or make the definitions. Neither does Albert.
> The
> term "validator" has a specific meaning, and neither one of you gets to
> redefine it to suit your whims.
I didn't make the definition up either. There is a common definition of
"validator" as well as a specific one. Most people use the common one and
that's what I used when I originally named the program.
It only seems to be dishonest marketing for those that only understand one
definition of "validator". And now that std/pro v8.0+ includes a DTD based
validator, even the critics should be happy, but they're not. As hard as I
try, I can't please everyone!
Albert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|