CSS software tools sought

[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.
>
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).

So DTD validators are both too strict and too loose. Uh-huh.

As I said earlier, what "most people are happy with" is irrelevant
because most people don't understand the issues and assume that
software writers do.

--
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

[Helmut Richter]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Stan Brown wrote:

So DTD validators are both too strict and too loose. Uh-huh.

I am not sure I understand this discussion. As it is obvious that there
are valid documents that do not work and that there are invalid documents
that do work (but then by mere chance), it should be in the interest of
everybody to ensure that his product is valid *and* works, no matter how
many tools he uses for the prupose as long as they fit at least one of the
purposes.

Validity has preference because of the parenthesis in the last sentence,
but I would not object to a tool that points out potential errors that do
not consist in a violation of the DTD. I can then decide whether it is
indeed an error. However, if such a tool does not find all errors (DTD
violations) or does not distinguish between errors and warnings, it must
not be called a "validator" .

--
Helmut Richter

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

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.

A code-monkey can hack together bits to make a real gem example of tag
soup, that somehow many current UAs can manage to display as a webpage,
but in know way can be considered a valid HTML document. However relying
on the tolerance of *current UAs* to handle such garbage is not a
dependable strategy. Who is to say what browser will be 10 years from
now. I'll put my money on valid markup today being supported tomorrow
over invalid markup.

--
Take care,

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

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: CSS software tools sought

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

"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.

Your putting "perversene ss" in quotes suggests that you consider
introducing invalid markup to assist a validator to be *not* perverse.
This is such a perverse design that it makes me suspicious of the
software as a whole. Fortunately I can't run it.

--
Ben.

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra lva.netwrote in message
news:ec4ba$4673 f753$40cba7a8

>
A code-monkey can hack together bits to make a real gem example of tag
soup, that somehow many current UAs can manage to display as a webpage,
but in know way can be considered a valid HTML document. However relying
on the tolerance of *current UAs* to handle such garbage is not a
dependable strategy. Who is to say what browser will be 10 years from now.
I'll put my money on valid markup today being supported tomorrow over
invalid markup.

Which is no problem with CSE HTML Validator if you want to write only
strictly technically correct markup. You can use ONLY the DTD based
validator or you can use CSE HTML Validator's own validator (to find
problems missed by the DTD validator) as well as the DTD based validator.

It's up to the author/developer as it should be.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:VuRci.1792 11$D%6.49120@re ader1.news.saun alahti.fi...

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

>
No, you have not written anything that refutes my statement.

Yes I have but to continue this discussion is a waste of time.

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.

Actually, it can be very useful and practical, especially for those who are
mostly concerned with pages that are seen by people instead of whether they
are technically valid in every way. Besides, if an author doesn't like
proprietary tags, then they don't have to use them.

Since you care so much about technically validity, then fine. It's your
choice... but to continually degrade and bash those who don't think like you
is inappropriate. Who are you to demand how web developers write their pages
and whether they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically
correct?

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam. nospamwrote in message

>
Who are you to demand how web developers write their pages and whether
they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically correct?

By technically correct I mean in the strictest technical sense based only on
DTDs.

Albert

[Stan Brown]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:51:37 -0500 from Albert Wiersch
<nospam@nospam. nospam>:

Actually, it can be very useful and practical, especially for those who are
mostly concerned with pages that are seen by people instead of whether they
are technically valid in every way.

Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?

I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
should be both.

--
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

[Stan Brown]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:51:37 -0500 from Albert Wiersch
<nospam@nospam. nospam>:

to demand how web developers write their pages
and whether they choose to concentrate on practicality or being technically
correct?

And yet another false dichotomy.

Being correct *is* practical. I don't know why you keep repeating
"technicall y correct" as though there were some other way to be
correct. Are you trying to turn that into a term of denigration, like
"politicall y correct"?

--
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

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
news:MPG.20de54 b7a6ee719f98ad8 5@news.individu al.net...

>
And yet another false dichotomy.
>
Being correct *is* practical. I don't know why you keep repeating
"technicall y correct" as though there were some other way to be
correct. Are you trying to turn that into a term of denigration, like
"politicall y correct"?

I have worked with many people who have different needs and requirements. It
is not always reasonably possible to be strictly "technicall y correct". In a
perfect world yes, but we don't live in one.

What is more important is that things get done in the best way that is
reasonable, and often that means forgetting about complete technical
conformance, which, in many cases, is a waste of time when it doesn't bring
any practical benefit.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
news:MPG.20de54 597e3d59fb98ad8 4@news.individu al.net...

>
Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?
>
I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
should be both.

Sometimes it can be both, sometimes it can't (or it's not pratical).

Real user agents don't use SGML parsers, so it's often a waste of time to
concern oneself with every technical detail while neglecting other, often
more important, issues.

Using a program like CSE HTML Validator that is designed to be more
practical is typically the wiser choice. I'd rather be alerted to potential
issues that can cause problems for visitors than only concern myself with
the limited number of technical problems that can be caught by using only a
DTD based validator.

Albert

[Ed Mullen]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
news:MPG.20de54 597e3d59fb98ad8 4@news.individu al.net...

>Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?
>>
>I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
>as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
>should be both.

>
Sometimes it can be both, sometimes it can't (or it's not pratical).
>
Real user agents don't use SGML parsers, so it's often a waste of time to
concern oneself with every technical detail while neglecting other, often
more important, issues.
>
Using a program like CSE HTML Validator that is designed to be more
practical is typically the wiser choice. I'd rather be alerted to potential
issues that can cause problems for visitors than only concern myself with
the limited number of technical problems that can be caught by using only a
DTD based validator.
>
Albert
>
>

I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.

Then analyze the differences. Test the pages in multiple browsers and,
if you can, on different OS platforms.

Then let's see what ensues. Otherwise, it's an intellectual (or
marketing) cluster-fuck and that has no end nor profit for anyone.

--
Ed Mullen

http://edmullen.net

http://mozilla.edmullen.net

http://abington.edmullen.net

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-17, Ed Mullen wrote:

Albert Wiersch wrote:

>"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
>news:MPG.20de5 4597e3d59fb98ad 84@news.individ ual.net...

>>Do you *really* not see that this is a false dichotomy?
>>>
>>I know you have a financial interest, but surely you're not so blind
>>as actually to think it must be one or the other when it can and
>>should be both.

>>
>Sometimes it can be both, sometimes it can't (or it's not pratical).
>>
>Real user agents don't use SGML parsers, so it's often a waste of time to
>concern oneself with every technical detail while neglecting other, often
>more important, issues.
>>
>Using a program like CSE HTML Validator that is designed to be more
>practical is typically the wiser choice. I'd rather be alerted to potential
>issues that can cause problems for visitors than only concern myself with
>the limited number of technical problems that can be caught by using only a
>DTD based validator.

>
I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.

<http://cfaj.freeshell. org/ttc/>:

http://validator.w3.org/:

Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/:

Errors reported:
The end tag for "dd" (opened in line 74) should appear
before the end tag for "dl" (nesting error).

The HTML 4.01 specification says:
Start tag: required, End tag: optional

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell. org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.ne twrote in message
news:PKGdnYFL_K 6JPenbnZ2dnUVZ_ vGinZ2d@comcast .com...

>
I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.

Or, perhaps a better comparison is for one to download the free trial
version of CSE HTML Validator and try it on their own site and see if it
comes up with anything useful that the w3.org validator doesn't say anything
about.

And ignore any "reports" from people who just want to bash the program
because they don't like the name. I'm all up for having a fruitful and fair
discussion about the benefits and downsides to different ways to check a
site.

Albert

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch wrote:

>
"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.ne twrote in message
news:PKGdnYFL_K 6JPenbnZ2dnUVZ_ vGinZ2d@comcast .com...

>>
>I suggest that anyone reading this discussion who produces Web pages
>immediately go to http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ and run some of their
>page(s) through CSE. Try it. Analyze the results. Do the same at
>http://validator.w3.org/ and compare the results.

>
Or, perhaps a better comparison is for one to download the free trial
version of CSE HTML Validator and try it on their own site and see if it
comes up with anything useful that the w3.org validator doesn't say anything
about.

Do you have a version I can run? I don't do Windows.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell. org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)