|
|
Posted by Bear Bottoms on 08/11/07 15:57
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:37:31 -0500, Neredbojias
<monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:35:13
> GMT Bear Bottoms scribed:
>
>>> 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?
>
> I know nothing about CSE, and believe I have no pre-judgmental attitudes
> regarding it, pro or con. But s'pose you have 2 different web pages.
> Cse
> says the first is 100% valid and the w3c validator says the second is
> 100%
> valid. Which opinion can one have more faith in?
>
CSE is the answer. I can give you proof of the pudding. Go validate my
website with W3C http://bearbottoms1.com. It gets a clean bill of health
whereas when I just recently downloaded the free offer for the payware
version of CSE, and it found one error and about 10 issues. I've been
going through those and they are valid issues.
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|