Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 04/17/07 17:35

Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

>> And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
>> discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled
>> someone.
>
> Sorry, I don't see how it misled the original poster. The only
> confusion I potentially see is that the OP may not have known that
> just because a page doesn't have problems (as detected by a checker)
> that it doesn't mean it will render as intended. Also, like I said
> before, the W3C misleads the same way, by saying a page is valid when
> it doesn't render as the user intended or still contains problem.
> With that logic, then all checkers and validators would be misleading.

Babble, babble.

Are you pretending to be so stupid that you did not understand the
statements that described that the "CSE HTML Validator" claimed a page to be
valid when it in fact had dozens of reportable markup errors, i.e. was
invalid in the sense that is relevant in HTML context?

You have repeatedly claimed that your commercial product, "CSE HTML
Validator", is better than the free validators around. Once again, it was
pointed out that it is much _less_ and even claims that a page is valid when
it is not.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Back to original message]