Local server HTML validator

[Stan Brown]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:[color=blue]
>Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> wrote:[color=green]
>> The intern has installed this CSE "Validator" on the library
>> computer and is presumably using it to test, or develop, or
>> something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
>> explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?[/color]
>
>That's quite a challenge, but it is useful to try and learn to express
>oneself with monosyllabic words at times.
>
>It [the "CSE HTML Validator" - sorry I can't _name_ it using words of one
>syllable :-) ] just tells what its author likes. Don't use it if you
>don't know the real rules well enough to tell what's right and what's
>wrong in what it spits out. It's known to make false claims 'bout things
>being wrong when they are in fact right. It works by rules that someone
>just made up.[/color]

Thanks. I guess I'd have to look at all the source code and scope
out what was right and what was wrong, then match it to what the
"CSE HTML Validator" says and point out the faux pas. Sounds like a
lot of work, and at the end of the day I might be blamed not
thanked.

(All one-syllable words, and quite a struggle!)
[color=blue]
>(Sorry about the occasional bisyllabics.)[/color]

:-)

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

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Stan Brown]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetnews @wiersch.com> wrote in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:[color=blue]
>"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ae91 e247b90be8e98c2 05@news.odyssey .net...[color=green]
>>
>> But if you're knowingly writing invalid HTML, doesn't the whole idea
>> of "validating " it go out the window?[/color]
>
>No, of course not. The exception is only if one is a purist and is limited
>to only using standards and 100% technical correctness. Most of the world
>isn't so technical and perfectionistic (and that can be a good thing!).[/color]

So someone who thinks "valid" should mean valid and a "validator"
should validate is a purist, but you (by your own words) don't mind
telling a lie.

And that would make you a ...

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

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Stan Brown]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetnews @wiersch.com> wrote in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:[color=blue]
>"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ae91 e247b90be8e98c2 05@news.odyssey .net...[color=green]
>>
>> But if you're knowingly writing invalid HTML, doesn't the whole idea
>> of "validating " it go out the window?[/color]
>
>No, of course not. The exception is only if one is a purist and is limited
>to only using standards and 100% technical correctness. Most of the world
>isn't so technical and perfectionistic (and that can be a good thing!).[/color]

So someone who thinks "valid" should mean valid and a "validator"
should validate is a purist, but you (by your own words) don't mind
telling a lie.

And that would make you a ...

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

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Nick Kew]

&quot;CSE Validator&quot; probably violating the law in many countries (Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway)

In article <407fa83e$1@new s.broadpark.no> ,
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> writes:[color=blue]
> I wrote...[color=green]
>> I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
>> but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
>> validator on W3.org.[/color][/color]

Indeed, you started this whole thread, as a clear example of a user
who installed a product in good faith, only to find you'd been conned.
[color=blue]
> I'm totally new to validated HTML. I knew about W3, and the
> online HTML validator. I did have a very basic knowledge about
> validated HTML, and the idea behind it.[/color]

A daresay there are many in your position.
[color=blue]
> Conclusion:
> If CSE HTML Validator had it's base (and server) in Norway
> I could have reported the case to the Consumer Ombudsman
> who would have found it/him to violate Norwegian laws, and he
> would have to change the name of his product. Most likely he
> would also have been fined.[/color]

Here (UK) we have legislation covering truth in advertising, and
accuracy of product descriptions. IANAL, but I expect CSE may be
in violation of both of those if it does business here. I believe
most (developed) countries have comparable legislation.
[color=blue]
> As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
> useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
> my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.[/color]

OK, you've got some answers: for a Windows user, arealvalidator is
presumably going to be far and away the easiest to install and use.

That's not to say other tools are not useful. As a developer myself,
I offer both formal validation and an accessibility analysis tool at
<URL:http://valet.webthing. com/>. If I described the latter tool
(AccessValet) as a validator, I'd be telling the same lie as CSE.
But I'd consider AccessValet at least as useful in "real life" as
the true validator, Page Valet.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[Nick Kew]

&quot;CSE Validator&quot; probably violating the law in many countries (Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway)

In article <407fa83e$1@new s.broadpark.no> ,
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> writes:[color=blue]
> I wrote...[color=green]
>> I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
>> but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
>> validator on W3.org.[/color][/color]

Indeed, you started this whole thread, as a clear example of a user
who installed a product in good faith, only to find you'd been conned.
[color=blue]
> I'm totally new to validated HTML. I knew about W3, and the
> online HTML validator. I did have a very basic knowledge about
> validated HTML, and the idea behind it.[/color]

A daresay there are many in your position.
[color=blue]
> Conclusion:
> If CSE HTML Validator had it's base (and server) in Norway
> I could have reported the case to the Consumer Ombudsman
> who would have found it/him to violate Norwegian laws, and he
> would have to change the name of his product. Most likely he
> would also have been fined.[/color]

Here (UK) we have legislation covering truth in advertising, and
accuracy of product descriptions. IANAL, but I expect CSE may be
in violation of both of those if it does business here. I believe
most (developed) countries have comparable legislation.
[color=blue]
> As it is I have wasted a ::lot:: of work using this, for me, totally
> useless piece of software, and would recommend everyone in
> my situation (newbie to HTML validation) to avoid it at all cost.[/color]

OK, you've got some answers: for a Windows user, arealvalidator is
presumably going to be far and away the easiest to install and use.

That's not to say other tools are not useful. As a developer myself,
I offer both formal validation and an accessibility analysis tool at
<URL:http://valet.webthing. com/>. If I described the latter tool
(AccessValet) as a validator, I'd be telling the same lie as CSE.
But I'd consider AccessValet at least as useful in "real life" as
the true validator, Page Valet.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[Nick Kew]

Re: Local server HTML validator

In article <MPG.1ae91f46d3 1d3d7f98c207@ne ws.odyssey.net> ,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> writes:[color=blue]
> something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
> explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?[/color]

<blockquote cite="http://valet.webthing. com/page/why.html">
It is important to note that validation has a very precise meaning.
Unfortunately the issue is confused by the fact that some products
falsely claim to "validate", whilst in fact applying an arbitrary
selection of tests that are not derived from any standard. Such tools
may be genuinely useful, but should be used alongside true validation,
not in place of it.
</blockquote>

Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?

(BTW, "some products" in the above of course means the CSE snake-oil.
I've also seen Tidy and Bobby mis-described as validators, but not by
their authors or vendors, so we can attribute that to honest ignorance).

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[Nick Kew]

Re: Local server HTML validator

In article <MPG.1ae91f46d3 1d3d7f98c207@ne ws.odyssey.net> ,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> writes:[color=blue]
> something. Since she obviously doesn't know any better, how do I
> explain to her in words of one syllable what is wrong?[/color]

<blockquote cite="http://valet.webthing. com/page/why.html">
It is important to note that validation has a very precise meaning.
Unfortunately the issue is confused by the fact that some products
falsely claim to "validate", whilst in fact applying an arbitrary
selection of tests that are not derived from any standard. Such tools
may be genuinely useful, but should be used alongside true validation,
not in place of it.
</blockquote>

Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?

(BTW, "some products" in the above of course means the CSE snake-oil.
I've also seen Tidy and Bobby mis-described as validators, but not by
their authors or vendors, so we can attribute that to honest ignorance).

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[Torbjørn Pettersen]

Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway (Was: Local server HTML validator)

Albert Wiersch wrote...[color=blue]
> In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking, and
> did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
> product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the same.
> I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
> you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
> requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
> your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
> in mind.[/color]

I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think that
when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
most people, i.e. as set by W3C.

You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can it
be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if you
ask me.

What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that my
HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.

Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn

[Torbjørn Pettersen]

Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway (Was: Local server HTML validator)

Albert Wiersch wrote...[color=blue]
> In your case, you wanted only (and nothing else but) EXACT DTD checking, and
> did not want to check for problems beyond DTD checking. In that case, the
> product is not designed for you or for anyone else who wants to do the same.
> I wouldn't recommend it in that case either (though I would recommend that
> you reconsider limiting yourself to DTD checking). But people with those
> requirements is a very small percentage of people. To most people, without
> your exact requirements, it would be very useful. That's important to keep
> in mind.[/color]

I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think that
when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
most people, i.e. as set by W3C.

You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can it
be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if you
ask me.

What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that my
HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.

Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn

[Torbjørn Pettersen]

Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway (Was: Local server HTML validator)

Albert Wiersch wrote...[color=blue]
> Also, I didn't ask what edition you were using. If the results were so
> different from the W3C, then you may have been using the lite edition, which
> is clearly stated on our site that it only provides basic checking. Much
> more in depth checking (beyond DTD checking) is available in the other
> editions. If you were using the lite edition and demanding at least W3C
> validator compliant pages, then you would have most likely found the
> standard or professional editions far more useful.[/color]

I tried both, and neither of them complies to the W3C standard.

The question is; Why would I use I software I can't trust to give me correct information?

Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn

[Torbjørn Pettersen]

Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway (Was: Local server HTML validator)

Albert Wiersch wrote...[color=blue]
> Also, I didn't ask what edition you were using. If the results were so
> different from the W3C, then you may have been using the lite edition, which
> is clearly stated on our site that it only provides basic checking. Much
> more in depth checking (beyond DTD checking) is available in the other
> editions. If you were using the lite edition and demanding at least W3C
> validator compliant pages, then you would have most likely found the
> standard or professional editions far more useful.[/color]

I tried both, and neither of them complies to the W3C standard.

The question is; Why would I use I software I can't trust to give me correct information?

Thanks, but no thanks,
Torbjørn

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Nick Kew" <nick@hugin.web thing.com> wrote in message
news:kqv4l1-iq.ln1@webthing .com...[color=blue]
>
> Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
> standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
> to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?[/color]

Or you could try telling the truth and stop slandering people.

Do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar? Do you slander them? I
hope not.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Nick Kew" <nick@hugin.web thing.com> wrote in message
news:kqv4l1-iq.ln1@webthing .com...[color=blue]
>
> Or in shorter words, "Would you prefer to work to open, published
> standards, or trust to the individual choices of one man who is known
> to be a liar and doesn't understand how the standards work"?[/color]

Or you could try telling the truth and stop slandering people.

Do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar? Do you slander them? I
hope not.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway (Was: Local server HTML validator)


"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:407ff75b@n ews.broadpark.n o...[color=blue]
> Albert Wiersch wrote...
>
> I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think[/color]
that[color=blue]
> when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
> most people, i.e. as set by W3C.
>
> You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can[/color]
it[color=blue]
> be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if[/color]
you[color=blue]
> ask me.[/color]

Read the page I pointed out and it explains why it's better. It can find
problems that the W3C validator doesn't. Granted, there may be issues that
the W3C finds that CSE doesn't, but in most cases CSE is better to use if
your HTML is intended to be viewed on real-world browsers by real-world
people.

The arguments that CSE is "fraud" and "worthless" are completely untrue, as
thousands of people have found it to be quite useful.
[color=blue]
>
> What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that[/color]
my[color=blue]
> HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.[/color]

Sure it can. Just use the W3C validator after using CSE to get the best of
both. Just use CSE's "standards compliant mode" in the standard or
professional edition and there won't be much more for you to do (if
anything). Plus, you'd benefit from the ease of use of CSE, not having to
access an online validator, and from the additional checking CSE does.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: CSE HTML Validator not legal in Norway (Was: Local server HTML validator)


"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:407ff75b@n ews.broadpark.n o...[color=blue]
> Albert Wiersch wrote...
>
> I think most peple would think like me, and a lot of people would think[/color]
that[color=blue]
> when CSE reports no errors, their code ::is:: valid HTML as understood by
> most people, i.e. as set by W3C.
>
> You even claim that CSE is ::better:: than W3C's validatior. But how can[/color]
it[color=blue]
> be when it doesn't follow the W3C's validation rules? Close to fraud if[/color]
you[color=blue]
> ask me.[/color]

Read the page I pointed out and it explains why it's better. It can find
problems that the W3C validator doesn't. Granted, there may be issues that
the W3C finds that CSE doesn't, but in most cases CSE is better to use if
your HTML is intended to be viewed on real-world browsers by real-world
people.

The arguments that CSE is "fraud" and "worthless" are completely untrue, as
thousands of people have found it to be quite useful.
[color=blue]
>
> What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that that[/color]
my[color=blue]
> HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.[/color]

Sure it can. Just use the W3C validator after using CSE to get the best of
both. Just use CSE's "standards compliant mode" in the standard or
professional edition and there won't be much more for you to do (if
anything). Plus, you'd benefit from the ease of use of CSE, not having to
access an online validator, and from the additional checking CSE does.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/