|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 12/23/99 11:41
Alan J. Flavell wrote :
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, GΓ©rard 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?
> [...]
If you are referring to the actual/current name of Marc Gueury's
extension, then I agree: the name "Validator" is not correct and it
misleads.
>> 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.
For now, it's a terminology/vocabulary issue; using M. Gueury's
extension is still useful for web authors and for the web in general
despite the wrong naming of the extension. And here, such incorrect
naming is most likely not intentional, not deliberate from Marc.
> It does not become true by continually
> repeating it.
>
> In an SGML/XML context, the term "validator" has a definite
> specialised meaning.
>
I know that. I'm not the author of the extension. I still maintain that
Marc Gueury's extension is useful, helpful and/but nevertheless does not
replace *validating* the pages with the W3C HTML validator.
>> 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.
Alan, if you visit this page:
http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/index.html
then how are you going to name, to identify that Firefox extension then?
Alan, if tomorrow you open up a restaurant and if you name it "Krusty
Burgers", then I'll refer to it as "Krusty's restaurant" or "Krusty's
burgers restaurant", that is even if your restaurant serve 1st class
gastronomy. You'll chose the name of the restaurant, not me. And from
there, we'll all have to follow your "terminology".
> It would be even better if that Marc could be persuaded
> not to misuse terminology in this way.
Ah... yes, that would best and would solve all this terminology issue
for everyone.
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
[Back to original message]
|