Local server HTML validator

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Saqib Ali" <saqib@stonebea t.org> wrote in message
news:d22b4f0d.0 404141841.3f718 11@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> Albert,
>
> I really like CSE HTML Validator, but in real-life lot of sites use
> empty tags, so CSE HTML validator generates tons of warning messages.[/color]

What are the warning messages you are referring to? CSE should be happy with
empty tags when used properly.

Thanks,
Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Saqib Ali" <saqib@stonebea t.org> wrote in message
news:d22b4f0d.0 404141841.3f718 11@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> Albert,
>
> I really like CSE HTML Validator, but in real-life lot of sites use
> empty tags, so CSE HTML validator generates tons of warning messages.[/color]

What are the warning messages you are referring to? CSE should be happy with
empty tags when used properly.

Thanks,
Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:c5lap6$gpu $4$8302bc10@new s.demon.co.uk.. .[color=blue]
> Albert Wiersch wrote:
>[color=green]
> > There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
> > markup.[/color]
>
> Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01 Transitional[/color]
DTD[color=blue]
> then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?[/color]

Because I start with the closest standard DTD and add what I think is useful
from there. Do you really think that browsers care if I add an extra
attribute that they don't understand for the benefit of those using a
certain browser?
[color=blue]
> What's the reason for this then?[/color]

I do not remember the reason now. I put it in there years ago and there was
most likely a good reason. Are you willing to say that that attribute
doesn't have any effect in all the browsers and versions ever written? I
doubt it. Now I may very well decide to remove it in the future, but it was
put in for a reason. And neither can one say having it hurt anything, other
than an extra millisecond or so of page load time.

Albert

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:c5lap6$gpu $4$8302bc10@new s.demon.co.uk.. .[color=blue]
> Albert Wiersch wrote:
>[color=green]
> > There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
> > markup.[/color]
>
> Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01 Transitional[/color]
DTD[color=blue]
> then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?[/color]

Because I start with the closest standard DTD and add what I think is useful
from there. Do you really think that browsers care if I add an extra
attribute that they don't understand for the benefit of those using a
certain browser?
[color=blue]
> What's the reason for this then?[/color]

I do not remember the reason now. I put it in there years ago and there was
most likely a good reason. Are you willing to say that that attribute
doesn't have any effect in all the browsers and versions ever written? I
doubt it. Now I may very well decide to remove it in the future, but it was
put in for a reason. And neither can one say having it hurt anything, other
than an extra millisecond or so of page load time.

Albert

[Saqib Ali]

Re: Local server HTML validator

> Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a[color=blue]
> validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
> was. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
> think of when they think HTML Validator). I'm not going to continue to argue
> about this, but it's important that people understand this. The program is
> not marketed under a false name. Never has been, never will be. Look up
> "validate" in a dictionary and you'll see that there's more than one
> definition.[/color]

definitions are usually taken in context - The dictionay also says
friendship is a synonym for intimacy. That doesn't mean I am intimate
with Linus. :)

Getting back to XML:

A valid document conforms to the XML syntax rules and follows the
guidelines of a Document Type Definition (DTD), or in other word: A
valid XML document is well-formed and conforms to a XML DTD.

The process of comparing the XML document to the DTD is called
validation, which is performed using a validation parser (aka
validator).

In Peace,
Saqib Ali

http://validate.sf.net

[Saqib Ali]

Re: Local server HTML validator

> Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a[color=blue]
> validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
> was. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
> think of when they think HTML Validator). I'm not going to continue to argue
> about this, but it's important that people understand this. The program is
> not marketed under a false name. Never has been, never will be. Look up
> "validate" in a dictionary and you'll see that there's more than one
> definition.[/color]

definitions are usually taken in context - The dictionay also says
friendship is a synonym for intimacy. That doesn't mean I am intimate
with Linus. :)

Getting back to XML:

A valid document conforms to the XML syntax rules and follows the
guidelines of a Document Type Definition (DTD), or in other word: A
valid XML document is well-formed and conforms to a XML DTD.

The process of comparing the XML document to the DTD is called
validation, which is performed using a validation parser (aka
validator).

In Peace,
Saqib Ali

http://validate.sf.net

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Local server HTML validator

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Albert Wiersch wrote:
[color=blue]
> Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a
> validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
> was.[/color]

Eh? Which parts of http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html

HTML document
An HTML document is an SGML document that meets the constraints of
this specification.

are causing comprehension difficulties here? The term "validator" has
a definite meaning in relation to SGML, it's not open to
re-negotiation.
[color=blue]
> It is a validator in the common meaning of the word[/color]

Fine. In other words, it is not an "HTML Validator".
[color=blue]
> (what most people think of when they think HTML Validator).[/color]

In what way is the opinion of "most people" relevant, when the
question is about a clearly-defined technical term?
[color=blue]
> I'm not going to continue to argue about this,[/color]

I don't see that there's anything to argue about. The term "HTML
Validator" has a precise meaning. The product is not an "HTML
Validator". You've confirmed this yourself. The only remaining
problem is that - as you've rightly identified - the false claim fools
"most people".

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Local server HTML validator

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Albert Wiersch wrote:
[color=blue]
> Yes, it has been repeatedly pointed out that CSE HTML Validator is not a
> validator in the strict, technical sense of the word. I never said that it
> was.[/color]

Eh? Which parts of http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html

HTML document
An HTML document is an SGML document that meets the constraints of
this specification.

are causing comprehension difficulties here? The term "validator" has
a definite meaning in relation to SGML, it's not open to
re-negotiation.
[color=blue]
> It is a validator in the common meaning of the word[/color]

Fine. In other words, it is not an "HTML Validator".
[color=blue]
> (what most people think of when they think HTML Validator).[/color]

In what way is the opinion of "most people" relevant, when the
question is about a clearly-defined technical term?
[color=blue]
> I'm not going to continue to argue about this,[/color]

I don't see that there's anything to argue about. The term "HTML
Validator" has a precise meaning. The product is not an "HTML
Validator". You've confirmed this yourself. The only remaining
problem is that - as you've rightly identified - the false claim fools
"most people".

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01
>> Transitional DTD then? Why not use a DTD that includes your
>> non-standard markup?[/color]
>
> Because I start with the closest standard DTD and add what I think is
> useful from there.[/color]

So you apparently do not know how to work with DTDs, in order to create a
customized DTD.

It is not surprising that when advertizing your phoney "validator" , you
indicate lack of knowledge of DTDs (i.e., the very thing that real
validators work with).

Apparently you don't understand that every time to post your
advertisement (which, along with poor excuses for it, seems to be the
only thing you post here), you make the "CSE HTML Validator" look more
and more ridiculous. So your advertisements have a considerable impact,
just a negative one.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Why does the document claim that you conform the HTML 4.01
>> Transitional DTD then? Why not use a DTD that includes your
>> non-standard markup?[/color]
>
> Because I start with the closest standard DTD and add what I think is
> useful from there.[/color]

So you apparently do not know how to work with DTDs, in order to create a
customized DTD.

It is not surprising that when advertizing your phoney "validator" , you
indicate lack of knowledge of DTDs (i.e., the very thing that real
validators work with).

Apparently you don't understand that every time to post your
advertisement (which, along with poor excuses for it, seems to be the
only thing you post here), you make the "CSE HTML Validator" look more
and more ridiculous. So your advertisements have a considerable impact,
just a negative one.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns94CCC15 E8FEEAjkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
>
> So you apparently do not know how to work with DTDs, in order to create a
> customized DTD.[/color]

I do not normally work with DTDs but I do know that having a customized DTD
isn't going to do me any good. What browser is going to work better with a
customized DTD? What person viewing my site will have a better experience
because I used a customized DTD? It's better to use something standard in my
opinion (with, of course, the exceptions where something proprietary makes
sense).

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns94CCC15 E8FEEAjkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
>
> So you apparently do not know how to work with DTDs, in order to create a
> customized DTD.[/color]

I do not normally work with DTDs but I do know that having a customized DTD
isn't going to do me any good. What browser is going to work better with a
customized DTD? What person viewing my site will have a better experience
because I used a customized DTD? It's better to use something standard in my
opinion (with, of course, the exceptions where something proprietary makes
sense).

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[David Dorward]

Re: Local server HTML validator

Albert Wiersch wrote:[color=blue]
> I do not remember the reason now. I put it in there years ago and there
> was most likely a good reason. Are you willing to say that that attribute
> doesn't have any effect in all the browsers and versions ever written?[/color]

I'm willing to bet that it doesn't have any effect that can't be achieved
using one of the three methods I described that don't deviate from the
standard.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[David Dorward]

Re: Local server HTML validator

Albert Wiersch wrote:[color=blue]
> I do not remember the reason now. I put it in there years ago and there
> was most likely a good reason. Are you willing to say that that attribute
> doesn't have any effect in all the browsers and versions ever written?[/color]

I'm willing to bet that it doesn't have any effect that can't be achieved
using one of the three methods I described that don't deviate from the
standard.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[Saqib Ali]

Re: Local server HTML validator

> What are the warning messages you are referring to? CSE should be happy with[color=blue]
> empty tags when used properly.[/color]

Try this URL

http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xml-dev.com%2Fblog%2Ftest.php&warnings=yes