|
|
Posted by Albert Wiersch on 08/10/05 17:07
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns96AE641E72C07jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
>
> And despite the fact that the name is thus seriously misleading, you keep
> using it.
It's only misleading to you and a few others who insist on only one
definition of validator. To the vast majority of people, it's not
misleading. An HTML validator is simply a program that checks HTML documents
for problems.
>
>> Even you said
>> somewhere on your web site that, basically, it's probably a lost cause
>> to argue about your definition of validator being the only correct one.
>
> Your prose seems to be as sloppy as your false validator. You attribute a
> statement to me, without citing any specific page, so that people really
> cannot check _how_ badly you misrepresent me in your attempt to defend
> your
> product and its false labeling. And you make foolish remarks by calling
> the
> definition of validator in markup context _my_ definition.
It is _your_ definition because you've chosen to make it your only one. When
I say _your_, I don't mean that you were the source of the definition, I
mean that you have chosen to make it yours by defending it as you do. Life
gets very complicated when you look at everything so technically!
Here's the page I was referring to (at the bottom - final notes section):
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
Albert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|