Posted by Albert Wiersch on 12/22/46 11:24

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns96B6ED74798D1jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
> "Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetnewsREMOVEUPPERCASETOREPLY@wiersch.com>
> wrote:
>
> You never answered why you keep calling a non-validator a validator,
> except
> by admitting that it is not "technically" (i.e., in reality) a validator.

I've answered it many times. This is an example of why I'm not going to
continue to talk about it - it goes no where. See my previous messages for
why it is called a validator. Look up the word validate in the dictionary
(note that there is more than one definition).

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Back to original message]