|
|
Posted by Ben C on 08/12/07 08:53
On 2007-08-11, Albert Wiersch <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
> news:slrnfbr8im.8ua.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
[...]
>> Finally, if you find the earlier discussion on alt.html, one poster very
>> quickly found a bug in the CSE "Validator"'s HTML parser. Now software
>> has bugs in it, that's to be expected, but Albert Wiersch's response
>> wasn't. In a variant of divine command theory, he denied that it was bug
>> claiming that whatever the CSE Validator pronounced was correct by
>> definition. That kind of attitude is worthy of a Microsoft product
>> manager.
>
> Actually, this another completely wrong statement. If it was a bug, then I
> would have said it was. Someone who has the source code is better able to
> determine the cause of reported "bugs" than someone who doesn't.
I don't care what the cause is, it's still a bug. The cause may very
well be that your parser is based on spaghetti rather than on the DTD,
but that just makes it a bigger bug.
> Just because something doesn't work the way YOU THINK it should work,
> doesn't make it a bug.
>
> When there is a bug, I have no problem saying it is. I strive for bug-free
> software but nevertheless bugs do occur as with virtually all software,
> especially software as complex as CSE HTML Validator.
Oh it's complex? I wonder why.
>> Use a good text editor, tidy, the W3C validators and read a couple of
>> tutorials. That's much better advice to anyone than to buy the CSE
>> product, even if it is free for 17.5 hours on some special day of the
>> year. He can keep it.
>
> That may be fine for you, but others see plenty of value in tools like CSE
> HTML Validator and other paid-for tools.
No-one ever disputed that you can sell things to people by making them
see value in things that is exaggerated or not there at all.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|