|
|
Posted by Albert Wiersch on 08/14/07 14:59
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:8qcwi.206825$CY7.5719@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
> Three answers to one question, mutually contradictory, and none of them
> describes what you phoney "validator" does.
It's pretty clear to me. It doesn't check according to only one standard
which makes CSE HTML Validator, in many practical ways, better than
something that is only concerned about a single standard and is dumb to
everything else. As for the "phoney" claim, no need to rehash why that is a
false statement... just see my previous messages.
> You don't even know "HTML standards" (as you have demonstrated in past
> discussions); your software does not check what works on existing browsers
> (no program does), just some features that you happen to have considered
> (and might be wrong); and good style is not automatically checkable except
> in special cases - and the stylistic checks in your product are just a big
> mess and reflect what _you_ consider to be good style.
It can't check everything of course, but it does offer some helpful checks
and information about existing browser compatibility... and the messages are
not based solely on what I think. As I've said before, it's based on
generally accepted styling and recommendations from the experienced
(experienced in practical matters more than theory).
If you think I don't understand HTML, then maybe you should re-read my
messages and go over this supposed "demonstration" of my not knowing HTML. I
also suggest you actually spend some time with CSE HTML Validator and
provide some evidence for your accusations. If you do actually find
something that is a "big mess" or that isn't helpful to most web developers,
then I'll be glad to review and re-evaluate it. If it makes more sense to
drop a check or message, then I have no problem doing so.
Albert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|