CSS software tools sought

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>

>For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what
>people who have actually used it say:
>http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html

>
For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:

http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html

>

Yep, the only complains are the wearers discover that they have an
uncanny urge to migrate northward...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>

>For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see
>what people who have actually used it say:
>http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html

>
For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see
what people who have actually used it say:
http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html

On two sites I maintain, there is a page of 'testimonials' or customer
comments. When I suggested to both clients that it would be a good idea
to post a negative comment or two, thus making the pages more
believable, both said "No way! Only *positive* comments!"

I know that at one of the sites, some negative comments were submitted
but not posted. Testimonial pages mean nothing to anybody.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb .me.ukwrote in message
news:87y7ilfemg .fsf@bsb.me.uk. ..

>>
>What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many
>years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time.

>
It is odd then, that the site in your sig has quote a few syntax
errors -- all of which CSE HTML Validator seems to be quite happy
with.

That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.

If someone is more concerned about validating their pages to the strict
technical specs than what real people see when they visit the site, then
they're one of the few! Most people prefer that real people be happy with
their sites rather than strict DTD based validators (which by the way, are
very limited in what they can check).

This contains <cseignore>.. .</cseignoretags. This invalid markup is
presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain
within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose?

No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".

Albert

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: CSS software tools sought

"Albert Wiersch" <donotreply@123 donotreply123.c omwrites:

"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb .me.ukwrote in message
news:87y7ilfemg .fsf@bsb.me.uk. ..

<snip>

>This contains <cseignore>.. .</cseignoretags. This invalid markup is
>presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain
>within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose?

>
No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".

I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is
valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with
it". It thought it was clearer in the positive, but I messed up the
wording and it was very muddled. One adds invalid markup to allow
other invalid markup to be ignored (by the validator)? Or does one
sometimes add this invalid markup in order to get the validator to
ignore valid markup?

Either way, it seems a perverse choice for a "validator" . If I were
designing a syntax for HTML pragmas like this, I would make them
comments (or maybe meta data if they were page wide).

--
Ben.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

>This contains <cseignore>.. .</cseignoretags. This invalid markup
>is presumably intended to let the validator tell you the HTML contain
>within it is valid, or does it serve some other purpose?

>
No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".

And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells better that
way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes.

This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing
software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes the
document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness from a phoney
"validator" .

To give instructions to software that is supposed to process HTML documents,
the adequate method would be to use SGML processing instructions or, since
they might confuse some wowsers, pseudocomments, as many programs use.

ObCSS: This implies that it might be a useful to use, in a user style sheet
for a browser that has good CSS support, bogosity indicators like the
following:

cseignore { color: red; background: white; }
cseignore:befor e { content:
" Bogus code, symptom of using CSE HTML \201c Validator\201d : ";
font-style: italic; }
cseignore:after { content: " (End of bogus code.) ";
font-style: italic; }


--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Ben C]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-15, Albert Wiersch <donotreply@123 donotreply123.c omwrote:

>
"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb .me.ukwrote in message
news:87y7ilfemg .fsf@bsb.me.uk. ..

>>>
>>What are you talking about? I have been using HTML Validator for many
>>years. It has been validating HTML for a very long time.

>>
>It is odd then, that the site in your sig has quote a few syntax
>errors -- all of which CSE HTML Validator seems to be quite happy
>with.

>
That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.

Surely you can't believe that. For most web pages that anyone looks at
at all the great majority will not look at the HTML source but at the
rendered output in some browser.

More predictable results are guaranteed if the HTML and CSS are valid
since browsers are not real people but computer programs for which
technical issues are very important.

A lint program like your product might be another useful tool for
producing good machine-readable code.

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb .me.ukwrote in message
news:87ejkdezmq .fsf@bsb.me.uk. ..

>
I did get that. By "tell you the HTML contain(sic) within it is
valid" I should have said "be silent about invalid HTML contained with
it". It thought it was clearer in the positive, but I messed up the
wording and it was very muddled. One adds invalid markup to allow
other invalid markup to be ignored (by the validator)? Or does one
sometimes add this invalid markup in order to get the validator to
ignore valid markup?

This markup works fine when checking with CSE HTML Validator and such tags
do not affect user agents as they are simply ignored.

Either way, it seems a perverse choice for a "validator" . If I were
designing a syntax for HTML pragmas like this, I would make them
comments (or maybe meta data if they were page wide).

There is also a comment that does the same thing. It was added in a recent
update to be more standards compliant and address the "perversene ss" of a
proprietary "cseignore" tag.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:EBCci.1790 54$k52.170038@r eader1.news.sau nalahti.fi...

Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

>>
>No, it ignores the contained HTML, hence the use of "ignore".

>
And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells better that
way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes.

No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this misinformation.

This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing
software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes the
document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness from a
phoney "validator" .

This has been addressed and comments can now be used for those who prefer
them to the proprietary tag.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Ben C" <spamspam@spam. eggswrote in message
news:slrnf75ur4 .nfq.spamspam@b owser.marioworl d...

On 2007-06-15, Albert Wiersch <donotreply@123 donotreply123.c omwrote:

>>
>That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
>itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
>little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
>strict DTD based validators.

>
Surely you can't believe that. For most web pages that anyone looks at
at all the great majority will not look at the HTML source but at the
rendered output in some browser.

Yes... which is why it is often best to use a program that is designed to
try to find issues that are most likely to cause problems with the rendered
output instead of a strict DTD based validator that only cares about strict
conformance.

More predictable results are guaranteed if the HTML and CSS are valid
since browsers are not real people but computer programs for which
technical issues are very important.

Have you seen the sample page here that is completely "valid" by W3C
standards but contains many problems? Using only strict DTD based validation
is not as useful in finding problems as many people make it out to be.

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/whycseisbetter.html

A lint program like your product might be another useful tool for
producing good machine-readable code.

Yes, that is what it is designed to do. To take the best of validation and
linting and concentrate on the issues that make the most difference when a
page is rendered to a user. This includes checking document structure as
well as also checking spelling, CSS, accessibility, and even potential
search engine issues.

Albert

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that
concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical
issues that have little or no effect.

<lol!That's funny.

...doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is
validation if not technical? You should rename it to the

CSE HTML Non-Technical Real-World Pseudo-Validator
for People not Browsers

(Sorry that wouldn't fit on one line...)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[dorayme]

Re: CSS software tools sought

In article
<Pine.GSO.4.63. 0706151727420.6 629@s5b004.rrzn .uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <AndreasPrilop2 007@trashmail.n etwrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>

For those who want to know how helpful CSE HTML Validator can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html

>
For those who want to know how helpful magnetic bracelets can be, see what
people who have actually used it say:
http://www.acemagnetics.com/testimonials.html

Nice link to keep!

--
dorayme

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalidwr ote in message
news:oRDci.9000 6$Sa4.81258@bgt nsc05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...

Albert Wiersch wrote:
>

>That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that
>concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical
>issues that have little or no effect.

>
<lol!That's funny.
>
..doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is
validation if not technical?

Perhaps you didn't understand. It doesn't concern itself as much with issues
that are of little or no concern to real people being able to view HTML
while it concerns itself more with issues that are of concern to people
actually being able to view HTML. That's what *MOST* people care about.

Albert

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

>And you still call it a validator, apparently because it sells
>better that way. Thus, you lie for commercial purposes.

>
No need to bring this again. I've already addressed this
misinformation.

No, you have not written anything that refutes my statement. You have just
presented excuses for lying. That's like selling potatoes as apples and then
presenting the excuse that although potatoes are "technicall y" not apples,
they are apples in a broader sense and what people really want when they ask
for apples, and besides called apples in many language (pommes de terre
etc.).

>This also indicates lack of any professionalism in implementing
>software-specific notations. Using _markup_ with invented tags makes
>the document invalid, which is not paradoxical, it is just madness
>from a phoney "validator" .

>
This has been addressed

No it hasn't. You gave no explanation to the madness. Of course, there is no
good explanation, but you didn't even try. (Admitting a gross mistake is out
of the question, I suppose.)

and comments can now be used for those who
prefer them to the proprietary tag.

That's what you say now. But even if it is true, and I don't care, your
phoney validator has already polluted web pages with the <cseignore>
madness, it keeps supporting it, and the very idea of introducing it in the
first place is a clear sign that you were not competent to write either a
validator or any other useful markup checker. In a student's exercise, it
would be an understandable mistake. In a commercial product, sold for years,
it's a symptom of serious incompetence.

And you still present this as if it were a matter of taste - "for those who
prefer". This reflects your incapability of distinguishing between matters
of taste and objective (or at at least well-defined) criteria - a
distinction that is most crucial when designing a markup or stylesheet
checker.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

>Albert Wiersch wrote:

>>That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that
>>concerns itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical
>>issues that have little or no effect.

>>
><lol!That's funny.
>>
>..doesn't concern itself with technical issues. What the heck is
>validation if not technical?

>
Perhaps you didn't understand.

Perhaps I did.

It doesn't concern itself as much with issues that are of little or no
concern to real people being able to view HTML while it concerns
itself more with issues that are of concern to people actually being
able to view HTML.

You must be a fine dancer, Albert. Your skills of dancing around the
real issue are very good.

That's what *MOST* people care about.

...only your suc^W customers.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Stan Brown]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:07:45 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@
123donotreply12 3.com>:

That's because CSE HTML Validator is a "real-world" product that concerns
itself mostly with real-world issues and not technical issues that have
little or no effect. People write HTML to be seen by real people, not by
strict DTD based validators.

That's a false dichotomy.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you