|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 11/30/07 10:11
On 30 Nov, 09:36, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
> > > errors.
>
> > No, that's _not_ what it means.
>
> Gee, Andy, you are becoming very brief in your old age... <g>
That's why we have newsgroup archives. Validity (in SGML) isn't the
same thing as syntactic well-formedness. Someone who has been around
here long enough ought to have picked up on that distinction. Someone
fresh to the group might not know, which is why a statement like that
shouldn't be left lying around unchallenged.
(and in other threads, Mika just isn't worth the extra typing)
> In the usual validation services, there are errors and warnings.
That's not the point. "validation" and "syntactic checking" are two
different things, not two levels of the same thing. It's possible to
use perfect syntax and still be invalid. Even "Furiously sleep ideas
green colorless.", uses correct English syntax but is grammatically
invalid. (The better known, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
is grammatically valid, merely semantically meaningless).
It's also arguable as to whether there are "warnings" from a
validation either. DTD-based SGML validity is Boolean: you either are
or you aren't. If there's a "warning" to be given, then that comes
from some additional notation that can express a concept of "nominally
valid, but inadvisable".
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|