Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/18/06 20:36

Albert Wiersch wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4pnd20FjkplgU1@individual.net...
>> Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>> As for the original question, HTML validators are great tools that should
>>> always be used, but they're not perfect. They can't tell you that a page
>>> you wrote will display perfectly as intended.
>> That's like saying toothbrushes are great tools that should always be used
>> but they're not perfect because they don't shave you or clip your nose
>> hair.
>
> I don't see how that makes sense. I think a better analogy would be:
> "That's like saying toothbrushes are great tools that should always be used
> but they're not perfect because they can't guarantee that all plaque was
> removed and that your mouth is perfectly clean."

No, because while plaque removal is one of the goals of brushing one's
teeth, the features whose absence you consider to be imperfections in
the validators have nothing to do with validation. "Validation", no
matter how many times you say otherwise, has a specific definition in
this context because it's defined in the specification by virtue of
which this context even exists. The information provided by your tool,
no matter how useful it may be, falls outside of the purview of validation.

[Back to original message]