Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 10/13/81 11:41

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Gérard Talbot wrote:

> Recommendation: install HTML Validator (based on Tidy)

What *is* this nonsense? HTML Tidy is and never was a validator; how
could a genuine HTML validator possibly be based on such a thing?
[...]
> HTML Validator (based on Tidy)
> http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/index.html

You've posted that repeatedly before, in spite of it being pointed out
by others how wrong it is. It does not become true by continually
repeating it.

In an SGML/XML context, the term "validator" has a definite
specialised meaning.

> It will report errors and will warn you about bad coding practices.
> It will *not* replace the necessary checking with the W3C HTML
> validator.

In an SGML/XML context, all validators (properly so called) are
functionally equivalent: they differ only in details of user
interface, the helpfulness of their reporting messages etc., and in
any *optional* *additional* checks (additional to the operation of
validation, that is) which they may offer.

So if you are claiming that, of two validators, one is "necessary" and
the other is so different that it cannot replace it, then you seem to
have proved that they cannot both be validators.

Please use different wording to promote whatever it is you're trying
to promote. It would be even better if that Marc could be persuaded
not to misuse terminology in this way.

[Back to original message]