|
|
Posted by Albert Wiersch on 08/13/07 14:51
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:1187015069.125609.94920@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> And why don't you think I've used the program?
Most people who criticize it like you did not use it, and if they have, have
used it only for a brief amount of time that would not provide a "proper
experience" to really know what it can do.
> I did consider using
> it (a large site licence, no less), but decided not to. It works, it
> does the things that it claims to do. However it's impossible to teach
> HTML developers how to use it correctly, because it bundles up vague
> and wooly notions of "validation" and gives an overall report that
> doesn't distinguish between these. As a result, it does nothing to
> encourage the developers' overall understanding of HTML.
I'm glad you considered it then and evaluated it. You may want to consider
the latest version again (8.0), if you are concerned about DTD based
validation. You can do a validation based only on the DTD based validator,
then all the errors would be based on the DTD based validation and not mixed
in with the other potential problems and issues that CSE HTML Validator
finds.
> It's easier to teach new developers what validation actually means and
> thus how to make sense of the reports from a OpenSP / Jade-based
> validator than it is to take someone who has been exposed to CSE's
> confused output and teach them to understand what they're actually
> working with.
I'm surprised that you think the output is confusing. It should be very easy
to understand, especially comapred to other validators and checkers. If
you'd like to discuss this more, please email me here:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/webemailform.php
> As a tool that was likely to make my developers _less_ competent by
> its use, I decided against it.
If you think the additional checking that CSE HTML Validator does over and
above DTD checking will make developers less competent (I don't see how
myself), then you can limit it to just DTD based checking, but if you did,
then there wouldn't be as much reason to use CSE HTML Validator as compared
to the other tools out there.
> Also you have a significant commercial interest in this program, and
> in your ongoign misleading of users into the meaning of "validation".
I do sell the product so I have a commercial interest, but there's no
misleading... I never claimed CSE HTML Validator was a DTD based validator.
However, it now includes one.
Albert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|