Posted by Albert Wiersch on 04/16/07 17:05

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:64rUh.37025$oq4.15836@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
> Not unexpectedly, you express your continued determinedness to sell your
> product under a misleading name, i.e. to cheat customers.

Actually, our customers would feel cheated if they only got a "real"
validator as you define it. They don't want to be limited to that, but we do
include one in the current std/pro editions, though hardly anyone uses it
based on the questions and feedback (lack of that is) I get about it.

> Not unexpectedly, you had nothing to say about the user's confusion that
> your program caused by giving false information. You don't really
> participate Usenet discussions; you just advertize and present excuses for
> misleading people.

Saying (or implying) that a "real" DTD based validator is the only type of
checking worth doing is what is truly misleading. If there is any "false"
information I or the product gives out, then please feel free to bring it to
my attention, but please don't rehash the name argument or anything based on
it as there's no need to keep arguing about that. You can disgree with it,
but most people (I'd say more than 99%) have no problem with it. And like I
said earlier, the current std/pro editions include a DTD based validator for
the few who want to use one.

Albert

[Back to original message]