|
|
Posted by Richard Rundle on 10/18/41 11:24
"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetnewsREMOVEUPPERCASETOREPLY@wiersch.com> wrote in
message news:OK-dnZfKj6YXVZ7eRVn-uA@giganews.com...
>
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B5E741AA955jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
> >
> >> but it should be clear how limited a real validator is
> >
> > It performs a well-defined job, as opposite to looking here and there
and
> > making proposals and issuing error messages based on someone's opinions.
>
> Which is fine if you want to limit yourself to what is "well-defined" and
> ignore other potential issues like bgcolor="dfsdgfdsfgdfg".
>
> >
> >> and that HTML linters and checkers can find many issues that real
> >> validators can't.
> >
> > You mean like the non-issue that your phoney validator reports as an
> > error?
> > It's sad that there are no good HTML linters (actually never were), but
> > it's probably too late now. That, however, is not a reason to pay for a
> > broken checker called, in an intentionally misleading way, a validator.
>
> It seems like you've never used my validator, or don't understand it (or,
> more likely, you can't get over the fact that it doesn't conform to your
> chosen definition of validator). If it points out an issue that is not
> really an issue, then feel free to bring it to my attention. I may change
> it. You can also configure it as you want on a per-message basis.
>
> >
> >> This is just one of the cases where a "non-real" validator found what
> >> you would call a "futile" attribute. Obviously it is not good form to
> >> use futile attributes.
> >
> > That's your opinion. It is based on limited experience with the practice
> > of
> > HTML authoring. And it is certainly objectively wrong to call a futile
> > attribute an error when it in fact conforms to any relevant
specification.
>
> I don't limit the definition of "error" to what is only technically wrong.
> Again, it just seems you have a problem with the name of the program and
> "error" which means, according to the dictionary "a mistake" or "deviation
> from what is correct", among other definitions.
>
> > I see little reason to remove futile attributes, if a document contains
> > them as by-products of some HTML generator or as holdovers from some
> > previous version of the document where they were not futile, or maybe in
> > preparation for the next version that will drop the "f" from futility.
>
> Then you can disable the message in CSE HTML Validator and use all the
> futile attributes you want in hopes that they become useful, or for
whatever
> other reason you want.
>
> Anyhow, I'm not going to continue this argument. It's lost its usefulness
to
> the group.
>
On the contrary. If it's not a validator, just don't call it a validator.
Not hard, is it ?
--
Richard
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|