CSS software tools sought

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote in message
news:efhgk4-6fk.ln1@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavv y.com...

>>
>It's not a DTD based validator,

>
How else would you define valid?

As CSE HTML Validator "valid" which means it passes the CSE HTML Validator
tests. This checks for some of the same and some different things than a DTD
based validator.

The so-called errors that I've seen it produce have nothing to do
with validity.

As stated before, there's more than one definition of "valid".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid

If you want only the strict technical HTML definition, then a DTD based
validator is required. Otherwise not.

Albert

[Ben C]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-17, Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote:

On 2007-06-17, Albert Wiersch wrote:

>>
>"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote in message
>news:3ilek4-h7v.ln1@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavv y.com...

>>>
>> <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

>>
>Yes, one advantage to CSE HTML Validator is that it enfoces better
>structure, requiring some tags that are technically optional.

>
In other words, it is not a validator, since there is nothing wrong
with omitting the closing tags. It is a style checker.

It is a style checker, but even an HTML style checker should have a
working HTML parser.

[dorayme]

Re: CSS software tools sought

In article <137aal5j1nehia f@corp.supernew s.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam. nospamwrote:

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
news:doraymeRid This-F09D27.19052117 062007@news-vip.optusnet.co m.au...

What AW says in this quote is hardly scary even given your
paraphrase. After all, it is applied in this newsgroup to all
manner of things, and rightly so. It is a simple nonsense to
suppose that a lack of perfection in something is necessarily a
bad or scary thing. I assume that JK and others are getting stuck
into this guy because people can actually fail to get practical
benefits...

>
I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD validator) world
always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...

Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.
Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
a necessary condition (or close to it).

--
dorayme

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Scripsit dorayme:

In article <137aal5j1nehia f@corp.supernew s.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam. nospamwrote:

- -

>I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
>documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD
>validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...

>
Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.

Please don't misrepresent the views of Albert Wiersch. He seems to be quite
capable of misrepresenting facts (as well as other people's views) without
any help.

In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation", which is a
rather foolish concept, comparable to "perfect existence" and "complete
death", except that death isn't actually as rigorously defined as markup
validation (and some philosophers argue about existence too).

He wrote something that lacks grammatical continuity and any meaning - he is
just bashing people who have revealed that "CSE HTML Validator" is a fake.

Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
a necessary condition (or close to it).

I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and
it would be rather irrelevant. The point is, as Albert Wiersch has recently
confirmed in a message of his, that the "CSE HTML Validator" operates on
what Albert Wiersch regards as "valid" or "correct", claiming that anything
deviating from that view (which has not been presented as any systematic
document, just implicitly as "error messages" and other messages that the
"CSE HTML Validator" spits out) is an "error".

I might pay attention even to subjective messages from an HTML or CSS
checker, with "subjective " defined as "just what the author of the checker
thinks is right", if I had reasons to believe that the author of the checker
is a competent and respectable person. Surely the condition includes ability
and willingness to distinguish between subjective views and issues like
validity and conformance to authoritative specifications or published drafts
based on some consensus.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

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

[Ben C]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-18, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Scripsit dorayme:
>

>In article <137aal5j1nehia f@corp.supernew s.com>,
>"Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam. nospamwrote:

- -

>>I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
>>documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD
>>validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...

>>
>Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
>perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.

>
Please don't misrepresent the views of Albert Wiersch. He seems to be quite
capable of misrepresenting facts (as well as other people's views) without
any help.
>
In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation", which is a
rather foolish concept, comparable to "perfect existence" and "complete
death", except that death isn't actually as rigorously defined as markup
validation (and some philosophers argue about existence too).
>
He wrote something that lacks grammatical continuity and any meaning - he is
just bashing people who have revealed that "CSE HTML Validator" is a fake.
>

>Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
>a necessary condition (or close to it).

>
I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and
it would be rather irrelevant.

I presented that view.

Perhaps it is irrelevant-- you could always run a validator first and
then run the "CSE HTML Validator" afterwards to check for subjective
messages. If you're lucky and it groks your valid HTML you might get
some additional information.

The point is, as Albert Wiersch has recently confirmed in a message of
his, that the "CSE HTML Validator" operates on what Albert Wiersch
regards as "valid" or "correct", claiming that anything deviating from
that view (which has not been presented as any systematic document,
just implicitly as "error messages" and other messages that the "CSE
HTML Validator" spits out) is an "error".
>
I might pay attention even to subjective messages from an HTML or CSS
checker, with "subjective " defined as "just what the author of the checker
thinks is right", if I had reasons to believe that the author of the checker
is a competent and respectable person. Surely the condition includes ability
and willingness to distinguish between subjective views and issues like
validity and conformance to authoritative specifications or published drafts
based on some consensus.

These are good points. It might be an idea for AW to post the complete
list of things that "CSE Validator" matches on and the subjective
messages it produces for each one. Then there is a chance people will
make useful comments.

[dorayme]

Re: CSS software tools sought

In article <G0qdi.179862$M 72.81870@reader 1.news.saunalah ti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Scripsit dorayme:
>

In article <137aal5j1nehia f@corp.supernew s.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam. nospamwrote:

- -

I agree... I doubt the posters wanting a perfect and "perfect" HTML
documents ("perfect" being only that it validates in a DTD
validator) world always conform 100% to driving laws when driving ...

Best not to exaggerate, your critics are very far from thinking
perfect validation is a sufficient condition for a good website.

>
Please don't misrepresent the views of Albert Wiersch. He seems to be quite
capable of misrepresenting facts (as well as other people's views) without
any help.
>
In the quoted text, he did not write about "perfect validation",

That was an unfortunate phrase of mine. I should have said what I
meant more accurately and that is that best he should not
exaggerate, his critics being far from thinking that perfect html
is html which passes DTD Validator tests.

Rather, their complaints, for what they are worth, is that it is
a necessary condition (or close to it).

>
I don't think I have seen anyone present that view in this discussion, and
it would be rather irrelevant.

I meant only that his critics would more likely consider it a
necessary rather than a sufficient condition to use a DTD
Validator, He seemed to me to be implying otherwise and conjuring
a straw man up.

Previously I did present a view that if he was was able to help
various types of authors (ones that would be easily demoralised
by stricter attention) make better sites, then perhaps he is
supplying a not altogether bad service. I realise you will not be
pleased with this but it an impression I have.

While his product is not for the sorts of people who continue to
lurk about here, it is impossible to judge that it is, on
balance, a bad thing that he should operate freely and people
take up his product. It looks to me very different to snake oil.
It looks to me to be even better than homeopathic medicine.
Perhaps it might be at the level of naturopathy or even
chiropractice (all of these "discipline s" I have learnt not to
touch with a barge pole. But it would be bold indeed to say they
have not helped a great many people)

--
dorayme

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Ben C" <spamspam@spam. eggswrote in message
news:slrnf7cdd6 .klt.spamspam@b owser.marioworl d...

>
These are good points. It might be an idea for AW to post the complete
list of things that "CSE Validator" matches on and the subjective
messages it produces for each one. Then there is a chance people will
make useful comments.

I don't have such a complete list, but some things that CSE HTML Validator
checks for can be determined from the information from these links:

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/upgrade.html

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/v80/docs/configuration_flag_descriptions.htm

Some of the messages are turned off by default because they aren't as useful
as they were in the past (when people used much older browsers).

As always, I'm open to constructive critism and suggestion to make the
program better.

By the way, that's one of the reasons the program is so useful. CSE HTML
Validator is based on many suggestions and comments from web developers, as
well as messages, questions, and useful information posted to this group and
on the Internet.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam. nospamwrote in message
news:137d0srb98 nb4d0@corp.supe rnews.com...

>
By the way, that's one of the reasons the program is so useful. CSE HTML
Validator is based on many suggestions and comments from web developers,
as well as messages, questions, and useful information posted to this
group and on the Internet.

I forgot to add to the above that it is not simply based on what I come up
with as the misinformers would like people to believe. I don't make this
stuff up nor do I simply "invent" it. I go out and find it and then put it
into a program in a way that makes it useful to web developers.

Albert

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

I forgot to add to the above that it is not simply based on what I
come up with

Do you mean that it is not "technicall y" just your compilation of what you
regard as correct? (As usual, without saying what it really is then.)

I don't make this stuff up nor do I simply "invent" it. I go out and
find it and then put it into a program in a way that makes it useful
to web developers.

That means you make it up, making yourself the judge of correctness, making
the phoney "validator" call valid pages erroneous.

Nobody really thought that you invented all of it out of thin air. Surely
your subjective opinions are mostly copies (largely distorted copies) of
other people's subjective opinions or even published specifications. The
point is that the process is not reliable and transparent, and you really
have not given the impression of a noteworthy expert in markup or CSS
issues, so using a "validator" that is really based on your subjective
evaluation is really foolish. Too bad most of the victims cannot see the
irony.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

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

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:pZxdi.1800 18$I76.135904@r eader1.news.sau nalahti.fi...

>
That means you make it up, making yourself the judge of correctness,
making the phoney "validator" call valid pages erroneous.

Like I said, I don't make up this stuff. I get it from other sources.

Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly
declare pages "valid". You might know this if you actually used the product
you are bashing mainly because you don't like the name.

CSE HTML Validator simply finds potential issues and rates them on the
perceived seriousness (error, warning, etc.) based on current web standards,
and real-world issues. Again, much more useful than something limited to
only DTD based checking.

Also, if you would ever understand that there is more than one strict
definition of "valid", then things might make more sense and you'd
understand why CSE HTML Validator works the way it does.

Albert

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly
declare pages "valid".

So now it's a validator that doesn't tell whether a page is valid or not.

You might know this if you actually used the
product you are bashing mainly because you don't like the name.

I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a
validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only tells
what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable expert.

Anything you have written ever since (all you have written in c.i.w.a.*
groups has been advertizing your product in various ways) has confirmed the
impression. The intentional lie in the name is your choice - your way of
making money, and I don't really like it, but it's your continued marketing
under a false name that makes it a lie, not my like or dislike.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

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

[Bergamot]

Re: CSS software tools sought

Albert Wiersch wrote:

>
with CSE HTML Validator
You can use ONLY the DTD based validator

Seems kinda pointless to spend money on something I already get for free
at W3C.

--
Berg

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:JIBdi.1801 69$vM.15794@rea der1.news.sauna lahti.fi...

Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>

>Also, I've already stated that CSE HTML Validator does not explicitly
>declare pages "valid".

>
So now it's a validator that doesn't tell whether a page is valid or not.

Most people care about fixing problems, not whether a page is declared
technically valid or not.

If you're so concerned about a page being declared technically valid,
there's always the DTD validator that you can use that is included in CSE
HTML Validator.

I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a
validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only
tells what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable
expert.

This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. You might think
it's crap, but the thousands of people who use it must not think it's crap.
Being in business for over ten years selling the same program should speak
for itself. If CSE HTML Validator wasn't useful, then it wouldn't be around
any longer.

Besides, if you had really tested it to any useful degree, then you would
not have made the false statements that you did about it.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSS software tools sought

"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi. comwrote in message
news:5do7f2F35o mg6U1@mid.indiv idual.net...

>
Seems kinda pointless to spend money on something I already get for free
at W3C.

Even if you are only using the DTD validator, there are still many features
that make it much more productive than using the W3C validator, like the
built-in editor that integrates with the validation results, the ability to
validate offline (faster and more reliable), the Batch Wizard to crawl
sites, the integrated web browser to validate as you browse the web, etc.
You can't get all that for free from the W3C.

Albert

[Ben C]

Re: CSS software tools sought

On 2007-06-18, Albert Wiersch <donotreply@123 donotreply123.c omwrote:

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message

[...]

>I have tested your product and saw that it was crap. It's neither a
>validator nor a useful checker ("lint"). As I have explained, it only
>tells what you like, and that's irrelevant since you are not a reliable
>expert.

>
This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. You might think
it's crap, but the thousands of people who use it must not think it's crap.
Being in business for over ten years selling the same program should speak
for itself. If CSE HTML Validator wasn't useful, then it wouldn't be around
any longer.

You remind me of the young Bill Gates.