Local server HTML validator

[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

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> I do not normally work with DTDs but I do know that having a
> customized DTD isn't going to do me any good.[/color]

You already told us you don't understand what validation is, or you
deliberately misrepresent your commercial product as a validator. (This
is an "inclusive or".)
[color=blue]
> It's better to use something standard in my opinion[/color]

So do you think that claiming your document to comply with HTML 4.01
syntax when it actually doesn't is "using something standard"?
There might be good reasons to lie about the DTD to browsers, but you
apparently don't know them.

--
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]
> I do not normally work with DTDs but I do know that having a
> customized DTD isn't going to do me any good.[/color]

You already told us you don't understand what validation is, or you
deliberately misrepresent your commercial product as a validator. (This
is an "inclusive or".)
[color=blue]
> It's better to use something standard in my opinion[/color]

So do you think that claiming your document to comply with HTML 4.01
syntax when it actually doesn't is "using something standard"?
There might be good reasons to lie about the DTD to browsers, but you
apparently don't know them.

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

[Steve Pugh]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
>"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
>news:Xns94CCC1 5E8FEEAjkorpela cstutfi@193.229 .0.31...[color=green]
>>
>> 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.[/color]

Really?

1. Your code will no longer to telling lies by claiming to be
something that it is not.
2. You'll be able to take advantage of the benefits available via
validation.
3. Anyone looking at your code will be able to look up your DTD and
see how you have defined the extensions you are using. If the DTD is
commented or contains the URL of full documentation they can also read
what you think the extensions should do in supporting browsers.
[color=blue]
>What browser is going to work better with a customized DTD?[/color]

Depends. Customs DTDs tend to trigger Standards mode in modern
browsers so the literal answer to the above question is "quite a lot
of them".

Of course as you're using non-standard code the chances are that you
want Quirks mode anyway (some of the non-standard attributes are
ignored in Standards mode), so in actual fact you want browsers to
work worse not better. ;-)
[color=blue]
>What person viewing my site will have a better experience
>because I used a customized DTD?[/color]

What person viewing your site will have a worse experience if you use
no doctype at all?
[color=blue]
>It's better to use something standard in my opinion[/color]

But you're not...
[color=blue]
>(with, of course, the exceptions where something proprietary makes
>sense).[/color]

At which point it's no longer standard so you should stop claiming
that it is. If you don't write standard HTML then don't use a standard
doctype declaration - either use one that references a custom DTD or
don't use one at all. These two options give you Standards and Quirks
mode respectively.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Steve Pugh]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
>"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
>news:Xns94CCC1 5E8FEEAjkorpela cstutfi@193.229 .0.31...[color=green]
>>
>> 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.[/color]

Really?

1. Your code will no longer to telling lies by claiming to be
something that it is not.
2. You'll be able to take advantage of the benefits available via
validation.
3. Anyone looking at your code will be able to look up your DTD and
see how you have defined the extensions you are using. If the DTD is
commented or contains the URL of full documentation they can also read
what you think the extensions should do in supporting browsers.
[color=blue]
>What browser is going to work better with a customized DTD?[/color]

Depends. Customs DTDs tend to trigger Standards mode in modern
browsers so the literal answer to the above question is "quite a lot
of them".

Of course as you're using non-standard code the chances are that you
want Quirks mode anyway (some of the non-standard attributes are
ignored in Standards mode), so in actual fact you want browsers to
work worse not better. ;-)
[color=blue]
>What person viewing my site will have a better experience
>because I used a customized DTD?[/color]

What person viewing your site will have a worse experience if you use
no doctype at all?
[color=blue]
>It's better to use something standard in my opinion[/color]

But you're not...
[color=blue]
>(with, of course, the exceptions where something proprietary makes
>sense).[/color]

At which point it's no longer standard so you should stop claiming
that it is. If you don't write standard HTML then don't use a standard
doctype declaration - either use one that references a custom DTD or
don't use one at all. These two options give you Standards and Quirks
mode respectively.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns94CCD86 23FFBDjkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
>
> So do you think that claiming your document to comply with HTML 4.01
> syntax when it actually doesn't is "using something standard"?[/color]

Yes. Just because there's one or two elements that aren't standard, doesn't
mean that no standards were used. I used plenty of standards in my pages.

--
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:Xns94CCD86 23FFBDjkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
>
> So do you think that claiming your document to comply with HTML 4.01
> syntax when it actually doesn't is "using something standard"?[/color]

Yes. Just because there's one or two elements that aren't standard, doesn't
mean that no standards were used. I used plenty of standards in my pages.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net > wrote in message
news:jpjt70tp02 lg3l38pk7kq75nb t15hoocb3@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
>
> 1. Your code will no longer to telling lies by claiming to be
> something that it is not.[/color]

I'm not a purist. I do not care if I "tell a lie" by using a transitional
DTD and then using one or two proprietary pieces of markup. What matters is
that people are able to benfit from the information on my web site. That's
what I believe should be the concern of a webmaster, not whether they are
telling a lie because their document isn't 100% valid according to a DTD.
[color=blue]
> 2. You'll be able to take advantage of the benefits available via
> validation.[/color]

I can take plenty of advantage of validators using the benefits of CSE HTML
Validator. And I can still use the W3C validator if I want to, ignoring the
error that it generates for proprietary markup.
[color=blue]
> 3. Anyone looking at your code will be able to look up your DTD and
> see how you have defined the extensions you are using. If the DTD is
> commented or contains the URL of full documentation they can also read
> what you think the extensions should do in supporting browsers.[/color]

And how many people do you suppose are going to look at someone's pages like
that? If I wanted to do such a thing for the .001% of people who do, then I
would. I have better things to do, however.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >What browser is going to work better with a customized DTD?[/color]
>
> Depends. Customs DTDs tend to trigger Standards mode in modern
> browsers so the literal answer to the above question is "quite a lot
> of them".[/color]

The real issue here is whether standards mode is on or not, not whether the
DTD is custom or not, since whether the browser is in standard or quirk mode
affects how the page is rendered. A custom DTD is not needed to control
quirks mode. I can use a standard DTD.
[color=blue]
> At which point it's no longer standard so you should stop claiming
> that it is. If you don't write standard HTML then don't use a standard
> doctype declaration - either use one that references a custom DTD or
> don't use one at all. These two options give you Standards and Quirks
> mode respectively.[/color]

As an author, I decide what I think is best and write my pages accordingly.
You can choose how you want to write your pages. Very few people care about
writing 100% technically compliant pages. What is important is that the
viewer be able to benefit from the information on the web page, not that
it's 100% compliant with technical standards. My belief is that it is more
important to please people than to please a validator. Of course validators
are useful, but I target my pages primarily toward people and the browsers
that show the pages to people, not validators.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net > wrote in message
news:jpjt70tp02 lg3l38pk7kq75nb t15hoocb3@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
>
> 1. Your code will no longer to telling lies by claiming to be
> something that it is not.[/color]

I'm not a purist. I do not care if I "tell a lie" by using a transitional
DTD and then using one or two proprietary pieces of markup. What matters is
that people are able to benfit from the information on my web site. That's
what I believe should be the concern of a webmaster, not whether they are
telling a lie because their document isn't 100% valid according to a DTD.
[color=blue]
> 2. You'll be able to take advantage of the benefits available via
> validation.[/color]

I can take plenty of advantage of validators using the benefits of CSE HTML
Validator. And I can still use the W3C validator if I want to, ignoring the
error that it generates for proprietary markup.
[color=blue]
> 3. Anyone looking at your code will be able to look up your DTD and
> see how you have defined the extensions you are using. If the DTD is
> commented or contains the URL of full documentation they can also read
> what you think the extensions should do in supporting browsers.[/color]

And how many people do you suppose are going to look at someone's pages like
that? If I wanted to do such a thing for the .001% of people who do, then I
would. I have better things to do, however.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >What browser is going to work better with a customized DTD?[/color]
>
> Depends. Customs DTDs tend to trigger Standards mode in modern
> browsers so the literal answer to the above question is "quite a lot
> of them".[/color]

The real issue here is whether standards mode is on or not, not whether the
DTD is custom or not, since whether the browser is in standard or quirk mode
affects how the page is rendered. A custom DTD is not needed to control
quirks mode. I can use a standard DTD.
[color=blue]
> At which point it's no longer standard so you should stop claiming
> that it is. If you don't write standard HTML then don't use a standard
> doctype declaration - either use one that references a custom DTD or
> don't use one at all. These two options give you Standards and Quirks
> mode respectively.[/color]

As an author, I decide what I think is best and write my pages accordingly.
You can choose how you want to write your pages. Very few people care about
writing 100% technically compliant pages. What is important is that the
viewer be able to benefit from the information on the web page, not that
it's 100% compliant with technical standards. My belief is that it is more
important to please people than to please a validator. Of course validators
are useful, but I target my pages primarily toward people and the browsers
that show the pages to people, not validators.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:c5mh58$9jf $2$8300dec7@new s.demon.co.uk.. .[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

That may be true, but it might not be. The "valign" attribute for the
"table" element probably has an effect on an older browser, which is why I
put it in there a few years ago. The methods you mention may or may not have
the same effect in that browser. There are so many browsers and versions of
browsers available, and everyone knows that don't all behave the same way.

But it could probably safely be removed now since most people use updated
browsers now where that attribute doesn't have any effect... so I may do
that.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:c5mh58$9jf $2$8300dec7@new s.demon.co.uk.. .[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

That may be true, but it might not be. The "valign" attribute for the
"table" element probably has an effect on an older browser, which is why I
put it in there a few years ago. The methods you mention may or may not have
the same effect in that browser. There are so many browsers and versions of
browsers available, and everyone knows that don't all behave the same way.

But it could probably safely be removed now since most people use updated
browsers now where that attribute doesn't have any effect... so I may do
that.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Saqib Ali" <saqib@stonebea t.org> wrote in message
news:d22b4f0d.0 404150951.574e2 ff6@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
>
> Try this URL
>[/color]

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

That's not CSE HTML Validator generating those warnings. CSE has no problem
with <p/>.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Local server HTML validator


"Saqib Ali" <saqib@stonebea t.org> wrote in message
news:d22b4f0d.0 404150951.574e2 ff6@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
>
> Try this URL
>[/color]

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

That's not CSE HTML Validator generating those warnings. CSE has no problem
with <p/>.

--
Albert Wiersch

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Local server HTML validator

"Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetREMV ETHISUPPERCASET ORPLYnews@wiers ch.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> I do not care if I "tell a lie"[/color]

We regulars know that, but thanks for making it clear to all of us.

--
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]
> I do not care if I "tell a lie"[/color]

We regulars know that, but thanks for making it clear to all of us.

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