Validating against a higher standard

[Ben C]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

On 2008-09-12, Michael Stemper <mstemper@walka bout.empros.com wrote:

In article <slrngc33p3.1fk 8.usenet@debran ded.larseighner .com>, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseig hner.comwrites:

>>In our last episode, <g9rqlk$rio$1@a ioe.org>, the lovely and talented Michael Stemper broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

>

>>The W3C Validator is a great help, as far as it goes. However, I'm looking
>>for something stricter. My coding style does not allow for implicit
>>termination of an element; my intention and desire is to explicitly
>>terminate every element.

>>
>>Install nsgmls from James Clark's SP or the OpenSp package.

>
Where would I find such a thing, and would I need to have a compiler?

If you're using SUSE Linux, just install the package called
w3c-markup-validator, and everything else it says it needs. No compiling
required.

[Lars Eighner]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In our last episode, <gae937$tlt$1@a ioe.org>, the lovely and talented
Michael Stemper broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

In article <slrngc33p3.1fk 8.usenet@debran ded.larseighner .com>, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseig hner.comwrites:

>>In our last episode, <g9rqlk$rio$1@a ioe.org>, the lovely and talented Michael Stemper broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

>>The W3C Validator is a great help, as far as it goes. However, I'm looking
>>for something stricter. My coding style does not allow for implicit
>>termination of an element; my intention and desire is to explicitly
>>terminate every element.

>>
>>Install nsgmls from James Clark's SP or the OpenSp package.

Where would I find such a thing, and would I need to have a compiler?

<http://www.jclark.com/sp/>

I forget that compilers aren't standard equipment on all systems. It
is written in c++. It does compile on gcc, and is said to compile on
Sun C++, and visual C++ 6.0. There seem to be a number of older windows and
DOS binaries --- one of which might work with newer systems (as this is
basically a command line program, I'd try running the MS-DOS binary in a DOS
window first.

>>You can use to Tidy to add closing tags,

Nope, I don't want anything other than my keyboard adding anythin.

Tidy is a pain and for sure in the better-than-nothing class; I don't know
how I can make this endorsement more lukewarm. If you poke around freeward
sites for your system, you might find an HTML lint which might be convinced
by a pack of lies to serve your narrow purpose (i.e. tell its config that
tags are required --- it won't parse by the DTD and so won't know you are
lying).

After running dual boot for a dozen years I realized I had not booted to
Windows in more that two years and deleted my Windows partition, or I would
try some of the binaries out.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/usenet@larseigh ner.com
War on Terrorism: Bad News from the Sanity Front
"In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to ...
torture." --Jonathan Alter,_Newsweek _

[Ben C]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

On 2008-09-12, Michael Stemper <mstemper@walka bout.empros.com wrote:

In article <slrngc8ae8.31m .spamspam@bowse r.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam@spam. eggswrites:

>>On 2008-09-07, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

>>Jorgen Grahn wrote:

>

>>>and reading the error messages?
>>>
>>Most people don't know how to read error messages, especially when the
>>messages are cryptic. The W3C validator and the WDG validator are familiar
>>to most people who care about validation, so why not use them?

>>
>>It's a lot more annoying having to go through a website, and then after
>>validating you have to match up the errors to your sources manually and
>>then resubmit.

>
Being able to do my validation locally instead of having to fire up
the modem would be a benfit.
>

>>Much better to have a program that you can use from your editor

>
? Run a program from my editor? You mean like:
>
>:!pgmname

Yes, you could do that. OK if there are only a couple of errors. But
with a bit more effort you can get the errors to go into your "quickfix"
list.

That means you can get the editor to show the error message and then
jump to the right line in the file it's in when you press return-- the
kind of thing you usually use for compiling programs.

Why couldn't I run it in a different window?

You can run it where you like.

[...]

What about DOS? Is there a DOS distribution available? I don't have
any compilers.

I doubt it, and even if you did, getting a modern GNU C program to build
under DOS wouldn't be easy.

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Validating against a higher standard


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:IFwyk.6462 8$_03.41786@rea der1.news.sauna lahti.fi...

>
Quite some marketing strategy you have - selling fake products in a
discussion groups where experts regularly reveal your lies.

The "experts" are often wrong. Something I've noticed a lot lately. :-)

My recommendation is that you let people decide for themselves and give them
the facts. Yes, it is true that CSE HTML Validator's own validator engine is
not a DTD based validator, but that's more often than not a GOOD THING. You,
as an "expert" should well know the limitations of DTD based validators and
that real web browsers don't even use SGML parsers. And, you should also
know, because I have stated it many times, if DTD validation is what you
want, then CSE HTML Validator Std/Pro has that too.

This page has some good examples about the limitations of using DTD based
validators:

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/whycseisbetter.html

And CSE HTML Validator can do what the original poster requested with the
click of one checkbox to require all optional end tags.

Albert Wiersch

[Stan Brown]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:30:44 -0500 from Albert Wiersch
<nospam@nospam. com>:

Try our product, CSE HTML Validator.

Oh boy, here we go again.

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

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

[Stan Brown]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:32:24 +0200 (CEST) from Michael Stemper
<mstemper@walka bout.empros.com >:

In article <slrngc33p3.1fk 8.usenet@debran ded.larseighner .com>,
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseig hner.comwrites:

Install nsgmls from James Clark's SP or the OpenSp package.

>
Where would I find such a thing,

Gee, if only there were some sort of search engine where you could
type in an unusual term like "nsgmls" and it would find relevant Web
pages.

and would I need to have a compiler?

No.

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

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Stan Brown wrote:

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:30:44 -0500 from Albert Wiersch
<nospam@nospam. com>:

>Try our product, CSE HTML Validator.

>
Oh boy, here we go again.

If I remember correctly, this spammer has changed the announced email
address, so there is _some_ change. I guess he just won't see the irony of
using a (probably fake - it fits!) email address with "nospam" twice in it
when spamming.

(Of course, the "CSE HTML Validator" salesman is not a spammer in the
technical sense e.g. as defined by the Breitbart index but surely a spammer
in the real-life sense, an indiscrete advertizer who abuses discussion
groups for the mere purpose of selling a product.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Validating against a higher standard


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:i4Oyk.6502 9$_03.54384@rea der1.news.sauna lahti.fi...

>
If I remember correctly, this spammer has changed the announced email
address, so there is _some_ change. I guess he just won't see the irony of
using a (probably fake - it fits!) email address with "nospam" twice in it
when spamming.

Yes, obviously the email address is not my real email address.

Anyone who wants to email me can do so here:

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/webemailform.php

(Of course, the "CSE HTML Validator" salesman is not a spammer in the
technical sense e.g. as defined by the Breitbart index but surely a
spammer in the real-life sense, an indiscrete advertizer who abuses
discussion groups for the mere purpose of selling a product.)

Actually, just trying to provide a USEFUL recommendation to the original
poster and letting people know the facts about DTD validator limitations and
why it is not as useful as one may be lead to believe by the "experts" in
the group.

If CSE HTML Validator happens to be useful and beneficial to someone, then
great! If not, no problem. It's still nice to be able to inform people that
DTD validation has its limitations (and pretty significant ones at that when
compared to certain other tools).

Albert Wiersch

[Lars Eighner]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In our last episode, <PxRyk.116952$4 p1.1999@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews .com>,
the lovely and talented Albert Wiersch broadcast on
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

Actually, just trying to provide a USEFUL recommendation to the original

No, you aren't. You are trying to sell your fraudulent junk.

poster and letting people know the facts about DTD validator limitations

The DTD is the only standard. Anything that does not validate against a DTD
is no a validator. You are profiteering fraud, as has been established many
times.

Albert Wiersch <== Liar, fraud, thief

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/usenet@larseigh ner.com
An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible.

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Validating against a higher standard


"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseig hner.comwrote in message
news:slrngcnr7k .26cv.usenet@de branded.larseig hner.com...

>
No, you aren't. You are trying to sell your fraudulent junk.

Sorry, no. I don't might pointing out where a product (any product, not just
ours) might fit someone's needs and it is certainly not "fraudulent junk".

The DTD is the only standard. Anything that does not validate against a
DTD
is no a validator. You are profiteering fraud, as has been established
many
times.

Been over this before and I'll say it again, no, it is not fraud. Your
chosen definition of validator is not the only definition in the world. I
recommend that you stop misleading people.

Albert Wiersch

[Ben C]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

On 2008-09-13, Albert Wiersch <nospam@nospam. comwrote:

>
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseig hner.comwrote in message
news:slrngcnr7k .26cv.usenet@de branded.larseig hner.com...

>>
>No, you aren't. You are trying to sell your fraudulent junk.

>
Sorry, no. I don't might pointing out where a product (any product, not just
ours) might fit someone's needs and it is certainly not "fraudulent junk".

When have you ever pointed out a product that wasn't yours?

>The DTD is the only standard. Anything that does not validate against a
>DTD
>is no a validator. You are profiteering fraud, as has been established
>many
>times.

>
Been over this before and I'll say it again, no, it is not fraud. Your
chosen definition of validator is not the only definition in the world.

Evidently neither is your chosen definition of fraudulent junk.

[John Dunlop]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Albert Wiersch:

Your chosen definition of validator is not the only definition in the world.

"The question is" said Albert Wiersch, "which is to be master - that's
all".

--
Jock

[John Dunlop]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Albert Wiersch:

Anyone who wants to email me can do so here:http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/webemailform.php

Not anyone. I don't see any e-mail address in Lynx; I see only "image
of email address".

Does the "validator" not pick that up?

--
Jock

[Albert Wiersch]

Re: Validating against a higher standard


"Ben C" <spamspam@spam. eggswrote in message
news:slrngco437 .5lv.spamspam@b owser.marioworl d...

>
When have you ever pointed out a product that wasn't yours?

http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/resources.html

Evidently neither is your chosen definition of fraudulent junk.

I accept more than one definition because more than one definition is
commonly used (just Google it). I just don't assume that there can be one
and only one definition. That would be ignoring reality. :-)

Albert Wiersch

[dorayme]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In article <slrngcnr7k.26c v.usenet@debran ded.larseighner .com>,
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseig hner.comwrote:

In our last episode, <PxRyk.116952$4 p1.1999@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews .com>,
the lovely and talented Albert Wiersch broadcast on
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>

Actually, just trying to provide a USEFUL recommendation to the original

>
No, you aren't. You are trying to sell your fraudulent junk.
>

Could it be that the truth lies somewhere in between? In other words,
that Albert is keen to sell but also targets those whom he genuinely
believes would benefit from his product? Perhaps earthlings are a bit
more complicated than you know about...

poster and letting people know the facts about DTD validator limitations

>
The DTD is the only standard. Anything that does not validate against a DTD
is no a validator. You are profiteering fraud, as has been established many
times.
>

Albert Wiersch <== Liar, fraud, thief

This is totally over the top and you should apologise to him, Lars!
Albert is not a fraud and he tries pretty hard to be as up front as
possible, he does pretty well considering the defamation of his
character. He reacts and responds in a gentlemanly way and considering
the insults, I am surprised he has conceded so much.

He has learnt and grown like anyone exposed to intelligent criticism.
One of the best, btw, was that his product could engender a false sense
of security, but he has addressed this to some extent. You should
moderate your language and be fairer.

--
dorayme