Local server HTML validator

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
> the results won't be the same.[/color]

As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is not a validator at all, and you
have read that and you have decided to keep advertizing it as a
validator. You have now reached a new level of bogosity with the babble
about "engine".

Validators do much less good than many people think and say. But surely a
commercial product that _has_ to be sold under a false name of a
validator is even less interesting.

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

[Nick Kew]

Re: Local server HTML validator

In article <d22b4f0d.04041 40927.2d361468@ posting.google. com>,
saqib@stonebeat .org (Saqib Ali) writes:[color=blue][color=green]
>> But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
>> than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
>> or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.[/color]
>
> hmm, for desktop validator, I think OpenSP or XSLTproc is better
> option.[/color]

Those are commandline tools. validator-lite is just a GTK-based GUI
frontend to OpenSP, that takes care of the complexities that make it
intimidating to many users. And it's GPL (free) and easy-to-use.
[color=blue]
> They both are free, easy-to-use and included with all Linux
> distros.[/color]

I think a lot of people find OpenSP challenging. Managing the SGMLDECL,
catalogue files and lib is not a simple task even for the computer-
literate unless they are working from a package such as one of the
validator distributions.

--
Nick Kew

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

[Nick Kew]

Re: Local server HTML validator

In article <d22b4f0d.04041 40927.2d361468@ posting.google. com>,
saqib@stonebeat .org (Saqib Ali) writes:[color=blue][color=green]
>> But for a single user, a desktop validator is likely to make more sense
>> than a webserver-based one. That leaves arealvalidator for windows,
>> or validator-lite for other platforms, as someone already said.[/color]
>
> hmm, for desktop validator, I think OpenSP or XSLTproc is better
> option.[/color]

Those are commandline tools. validator-lite is just a GTK-based GUI
frontend to OpenSP, that takes care of the complexities that make it
intimidating to many users. And it's GPL (free) and easy-to-use.
[color=blue]
> They both are free, easy-to-use and included with all Linux
> distros.[/color]

I think a lot of people find OpenSP challenging. Managing the SGMLDECL,
catalogue files and lib is not a simple task even for the computer-
literate unless they are working from a package such as one of the
validator distributions.

--
Nick Kew

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

[Nick Kew]

Re: Local server HTML validator

In article <107r0kk43i6tp2 3@corp.supernew s.com>,
Brian <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> writes:
[color=blue]
> I don't know, I'd like to have a way to install a validator on my
> localhost-only Apache (which I use to test my sites).[/color]

Fair enough - your choice.
[color=blue]
> I use Windows.[/color]

Compiling OpenSP for windows is not for the faint-hearted, though it's now
been done. Hmmm, now that I think about it, there's a project now at
sourcefirge to add a validation bar to MSIE using a locally-installed
OpenSP. Check Bjoern Hoehrmann's posts to www-validator over recent months.
[color=blue]
> I could try to download
> the w3c code, and get all the components, but I haven't made time for
> that yet. But if something simpler were to come along... :-)[/color]

Take your pick: w3c validator (Perl/CGI), WDG validator (Perl/CGI),
mod_validator (Apache module), or Saqib's PHP. One of these days
I'll grab Bjoern's OpenSP binary for windows and try building
mod_validator against it. That'll then be both the most powerful
and most efficient server-based validator, as it already is for
Unix/Linux.

--
Nick Kew

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

[Nick Kew]

Re: Local server HTML validator

In article <107r0kk43i6tp2 3@corp.supernew s.com>,
Brian <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> writes:
[color=blue]
> I don't know, I'd like to have a way to install a validator on my
> localhost-only Apache (which I use to test my sites).[/color]

Fair enough - your choice.
[color=blue]
> I use Windows.[/color]

Compiling OpenSP for windows is not for the faint-hearted, though it's now
been done. Hmmm, now that I think about it, there's a project now at
sourcefirge to add a validation bar to MSIE using a locally-installed
OpenSP. Check Bjoern Hoehrmann's posts to www-validator over recent months.
[color=blue]
> I could try to download
> the w3c code, and get all the components, but I haven't made time for
> that yet. But if something simpler were to come along... :-)[/color]

Take your pick: w3c validator (Perl/CGI), WDG validator (Perl/CGI),
mod_validator (Apache module), or Saqib's PHP. One of these days
I'll grab Bjoern's OpenSP binary for windows and try building
mod_validator against it. That'll then be both the most powerful
and most efficient server-based validator, as it already is for
Unix/Linux.

--
Nick Kew

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

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Brian" <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote in message
news:107rigqkov j53c4@corp.supe rnews.com...[color=blue]
> You might find this more interesting:
>
>[/color]
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...eisbetter.html[color=blue]
>[/color]

There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup. Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately, if
you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.

I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there is
a reason to use something other than standard markup.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Brian" <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote in message
news:107rigqkov j53c4@corp.supe rnews.com...[color=blue]
> You might find this more interesting:
>
>[/color]
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...eisbetter.html[color=blue]
>[/color]

There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to use some non-standard
markup. Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately, if
you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.

I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there is
a reason to use something other than standard markup.

--
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:Xns94CC1A4 1BBCF1jkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
> "Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
> > the results won't be the same.[/color]
>
> As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is not a validator at all, and you
> have read that and you have decided to keep advertizing it as a
> validator. You have now reached a new level of bogosity with the babble
> about "engine".[/color]

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. 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=blue]
> Validators do much less good than many people think and say.[/color]

It's interesting that you say this. That's why I created CSE HTML
Validator -- to be more useful and do more good than "real" ones like the
W3C validator, since it isn't limited to validating only to formal standards
that can be expressed in DTDs. So it's great if that's what you want and you
want to limit yourself to that. But if you want more, the W3C validator
can't give it to you.

Anyway, use what you want, but I don't think it's appropriate to trash a
great product just because you don't like the name.

--
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:Xns94CC1A4 1BBCF1jkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
> "Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so
> > the results won't be the same.[/color]
>
> As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is not a validator at all, and you
> have read that and you have decided to keep advertizing it as a
> validator. You have now reached a new level of bogosity with the babble
> about "engine".[/color]

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. 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=blue]
> Validators do much less good than many people think and say.[/color]

It's interesting that you say this. That's why I created CSE HTML
Validator -- to be more useful and do more good than "real" ones like the
W3C validator, since it isn't limited to validating only to formal standards
that can be expressed in DTDs. So it's great if that's what you want and you
want to limit yourself to that. But if you want more, the W3C validator
can't give it to you.

Anyway, use what you want, but I don't think it's appropriate to trash a
great product just because you don't like the name.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[C A Upsdell]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com> wrote
in message news:ts6dndiicp OASuDdRVn-jw@august.net.. .[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. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
> think of when they think HTML Validator).[/color]

You could avoided this contentious issue if you had called your product the
CSE HTML Code Checker, or CSE HTML Lint program, or CSE HTML QC Toolkit, or
something more consistent with other, similar tools. Or if you had built a
real validator into your product, which users could use either separately or
in combination with your other code checks. Indeed, adding a true validator
to your product would both enhance its functionality and forever end this
kind of dispute.

[C A Upsdell]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com> wrote
in message news:ts6dndiicp OASuDdRVn-jw@august.net.. .[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. It is a validator in the common meaning of the word (what most people
> think of when they think HTML Validator).[/color]

You could avoided this contentious issue if you had called your product the
CSE HTML Code Checker, or CSE HTML Lint program, or CSE HTML QC Toolkit, or
something more consistent with other, similar tools. Or if you had built a
real validator into your product, which users could use either separately or
in combination with your other code checks. Indeed, adding a true validator
to your product would both enhance its functionality and forever end this
kind of dispute.

[Saqib Ali]

Re: Local server HTML validator

Albert,

I understand the argument about empty TAGs (e.g. </p>), however empty
tags is well-formed according to XML standards.

A Validator, by definition, should only check for well-formedness and
validity. Anything beyond that, is not the function of the validator.

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.

Just my .2 cents.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali

http://validate.sf.net

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com> wrote in message news:<Lb2dnVLEx u8xXODdRVn-jw@august.net>. ..[color=blue]
> CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so the
> results won't be the same. You might find this interesting, though:
> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html
>
> --
> Albert Wiersch
> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
>
>
> "Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
> news:407c4eb6@n ews.broadpark.n o...[color=green]
> > As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
> > HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
> > complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
> > local network.
> >
> > 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. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
> > due to all the ASP code I use.
> >
> > So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
> > like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).
> >
> > --
> > Torbjørn Pettersen
> > Editor/Webmaster
> > FantaFiction
> >
> > www.fantafiction.com
> >
> >[/color][/color]

[Saqib Ali]

Re: Local server HTML validator

Albert,

I understand the argument about empty TAGs (e.g. </p>), however empty
tags is well-formed according to XML standards.

A Validator, by definition, should only check for well-formedness and
validity. Anything beyond that, is not the function of the validator.

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.

Just my .2 cents.

In Peace,
Saqib Ali

http://validate.sf.net

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com> wrote in message news:<Lb2dnVLEx u8xXODdRVn-jw@august.net>. ..[color=blue]
> CSE HTML Validator doesn't use the same engine as the W3 validator so the
> results won't be the same. You might find this interesting, though:
> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html
>
> --
> Albert Wiersch
> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
>
>
> "Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
> news:407c4eb6@n ews.broadpark.n o...[color=green]
> > As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
> > HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
> > complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
> > local network.
> >
> > 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. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
> > due to all the ASP code I use.
> >
> > So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
> > like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).
> >
> > --
> > Torbjørn Pettersen
> > Editor/Webmaster
> > FantaFiction
> >
> > www.fantafiction.com
> >
> >[/color][/color]

[David Dorward]

Re: Local server HTML validator

Albert Wiersch wrote:
[color=blue]
> 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 DTD
then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?
[color=blue]
> Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately,
> if you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.[/color]

Gosh! The validator might not be useful if you don't care if your code is
valid or not! What an insight!
[color=blue]
> I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there
> is a reason to use something other than standard markup.[/color]

What's the reason for this then? The valign attribute is well supported when
applied to table data cells and table heading cells, and the vertical-align
property will allow you to:

..myTable * { vertical-align: middle; }

Not to mention that valign='middle' is the default anyway!

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

[David Dorward]

Re: Local server HTML validator

Albert Wiersch wrote:
[color=blue]
> 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 DTD
then? Why not use a DTD that includes your non-standard markup?
[color=blue]
> Some developers like to do that, while some don't. Unfortunately,
> if you do like to do that, then the W3C validator may not be as useful.[/color]

Gosh! The validator might not be useful if you don't care if your code is
valid or not! What an insight!
[color=blue]
> I do try to use standard markup as much as possible, but sometimes there
> is a reason to use something other than standard markup.[/color]

What's the reason for this then? The valign attribute is well supported when
applied to table data cells and table heading cells, and the vertical-align
property will allow you to:

..myTable * { vertical-align: middle; }

Not to mention that valign='middle' is the default anyway!

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