Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

In article <001mb3prnpfbdeboscuhgs0coisovfal2j@isp.com>,
Yrrah wrote:

> > http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/cse-html-validator/
> >
> > Payware program offered free today only.
>
> "You have 18 hours 17 minutes to download and install it."
>
> This is a very good HTML editor. I've been using the free version
> (lacks the validator) for years. Now you can get the "standard
> version" free of charge and I suggest you grab it while you can.
>
> I validated three pages and there were a few minor disagreements with
> the (free) W3C Markup Validation Service (http://validator.w3.org/),
> among which one small error which was overlooked by W3C. Oddly enough,
> in all three cases CSE did not recognize the doctype (HTML 4.01
> Transitional).

Hi Yrrah,
Thanks for sharing the wealth. I'm not very familiar with the CSE
validator but I'd be wary if the results disagree with those of the W3C
validator, especially if the CSE validator didn't recognize your
doctype. Without recognizing that, how can it perform meaningful
validation?

Cheers

--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Scripsit Yrrah:

> x-posted alt.comp.freeware,alt.html
> followup-to: alt.comp.freeware

Overruled; response x-posted to both groups.

>> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/cse-html-validator/
- -
> This is a very good HTML editor.

It's a subjective checker that is at irregular intervals advertized by its
author in alt.html and regularly revealed to be highly questionable. Having
been sold for about ten years under an intentionally false name (it was not
a validator), its author has now claimed to have added a validator to the
"CSE HTML Validator".

Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".

> 2. Upon validation it wants to make a 'phone call' out (I have no idea
> why), so instruct your firewall to block that.

Sounds like malware - adware or worse. It's hardly worth its price.
TANSTAAFL applies to a high degree.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> - -
>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>
> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".

And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense to most
people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed by a small
number of people who don't like the name. The people who talk bad about it
also don't really know anything about CSE HTML Validator, except they like
to bash it. This is evident by the fact that they often say things about the
program that are incorrect or misleading, so don't believe them.

>> 2. Upon validation it wants to make a 'phone call' out (I have no idea
>> why), so instruct your firewall to block that.
>
> Sounds like malware - adware or worse. It's hardly worth its price.
> TANSTAAFL applies to a high degree.

This is just more bashing and trying to scare people away. The program, as
many legitimate programs do, contacts home occasionally to verify the
license. There's no spying or malware involved. Since CSE HTML Validator has
a link checker, it may also be that it's trying to verify some links and
needs outward access for that.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Nikita the Spider" wrote in message
news:NikitaTheSpider-8C61CA.16271009082007@news-server.nc.rr .com...
>
> Hi Yrrah,
> Thanks for sharing the wealth. I'm not very familiar with the CSE
> validator but I'd be wary if the results disagree with those of the W3C
> validator, especially if the CSE validator didn't recognize your
> doctype. Without recognizing that, how can it perform meaningful
> validation?

Hello,

CSE HTML Validator actually doesn't require DTDs to generate helpful output,
though it can help.

If you want to limit to checking based on DTDs like the W3C validator, then
you can use only the built-in DTD based validator, but that will mean that
it won't check CSS, accessibility, links, and it won't look for many other
common issues and potential problems.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:18:21 -0500, Albert Wiersch
wrote:

>> Sounds like malware - adware or worse. It's hardly worth its price.
>> TANSTAAFL applies to a high degree.
>
> This is just more bashing and trying to scare people away. The program,
> as
> many legitimate programs do, contacts home occasionally to verify the
> license. There's no spying or malware involved. Since CSE HTML Validator
> has
> a link checker, it may also be that it's trying to verify some links and
> needs outward access for that.
>
> Albert
>
This is IMO even better than W3C validations. It gives better directions
and finds more issues and the interface is much more involved with
options. If those who would use it missed the opportunity, because of
these bashing, blame the bashers.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

In article <13bp0tio5r2uma4@corp.supernews.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" wrote:

> "Nikita the Spider" wrote in message
> news:NikitaTheSpider-8C61CA.16271009082007@news-server.nc.rr .com...
> >
> > Hi Yrrah,
> > Thanks for sharing the wealth. I'm not very familiar with the CSE
> > validator but I'd be wary if the results disagree with those of the W3C
> > validator, especially if the CSE validator didn't recognize your
> > doctype. Without recognizing that, how can it perform meaningful
> > validation?
>
> Hello,
>
> CSE HTML Validator actually doesn't require DTDs to generate helpful output,
> though it can help.
>
> If you want to limit to checking based on DTDs like the W3C validator, then
> you can use only the built-in DTD based validator, but that will mean that
> it won't check CSS, accessibility, links, and it won't look for many other
> common issues and potential problems.

Gotcha, thanks. It sounds like this is part validator and part HTML
conformance checker.

--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>> - -
>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>
>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".
>
> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
> by a small number of people who don't like the name.

It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
for.

> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.

It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:10:33 -0500, Ben C wrote:

> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>
>> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
>> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>> - -
>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>>
>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney
>>> "validator".
>>
>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.
>
> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
> for.
>
>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
>
> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.

Well I guess opinions differ, it is a great program. Considering that, I
would say yours is an agenda.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
>> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>> - -
>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".
>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.
>
> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
> for.
>
>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
>
> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.

Ben or Jukka;

Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually ascribed
to the W3C site functions.

tia,
-Craig

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Craig writes:

> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
>>> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>> - -
>>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".
>>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
>>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
>>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.
>>
>> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
>> for.
>>
>>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
>>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
>>
>> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.
>
> Ben or Jukka;
>
> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
> referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
> refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually
> ascribed to the W3C site functions.

It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the definition of the
term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that checks a
document against its DTD. Calling something a validator when it doesn't do
that is dishonest.

Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not being what he
claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that validators
don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself included) who despise
lies on principle, and might have purchased his product if he had marketed
it honestly.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

In article ,
Sherm Pendley wrote:

> It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the definition of the
> term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that checks a
> document against its DTD. Calling something a validator when it doesn't do
> that is dishonest.
>
> Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not being what he
> claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that validators
> don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself included) who despise
> lies on principle, and might have purchased his product if he had marketed
> it honestly.


Well, there you go Albert, no matter what the truth is, there are
some knowledgeable people getting a certain impression. So, see
what you can change in your advertising to reflect the good
things in your product and modify the claims that are giving this
impression.

--
dorayme

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:24:20 -0500, Yrrah
wrote:

> Craig :
>
>> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
>> referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
>> refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually ascribed
>> to the W3C site functions.
>
> The free version has no validator, only a very rudimentary and
> completely useless syntax checker of some sorts. The giveaway of
> yesterday 'standard version' has, but it does not do batch validation
> and you may just as well use the on line W3C Validation Service:
> http://validator.w3.org/ or
> http://www.w3schools.com/site/site_validate.asp
> There are more on and off line validators, link checkers etc. (not all
> free), e.g. see:
> http://htmlhelp.com/links/validators.htm
> I have not looked at those though.
>
> Yrrah

I think not. The online W3C validator does a fair job, but CSE does a much
better job, with clearer instructions, and many more tools. There actually
is no comparison...CSE blows W3C out. I've used all 3, W3C...the free CSE
which I agree is not very good, and the GOTD free giveaway which is
awesome.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:02:02 -0500, Sherm Pendley
wrote:

> Craig writes:
>
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>>> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
>>>> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>> - -
>>>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney
>>>>> "validator".
>>>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
>>>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
>>>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.
>>>
>>> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it
>>> stands
>>> for.
>>>
>>>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
>>>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
>>>
>>> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.
>>
>> Ben or Jukka;
>>
>> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
>> referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
>> refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually
>> ascribed to the W3C site functions.
>
> It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the definition of
> the
> term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that checks a
> document against its DTD. Calling something a validator when it doesn't
> do
> that is dishonest.
>
> Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not being what
> he
> claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that validators
> don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself included) who despise
> lies on principle, and might have purchased his product if he had
> marketed
> it honestly.
>
> sherm--
>
A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term is
commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML documents or
RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined format or language. That
is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE does a better job. W3C gives my
webpage a perfect green light, whereas CSE is showing me several lines of
syntax that can be corrected and one error.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Bear Bottoms" writes:

> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document.

Most technical fields have terms that have more specific meaning in that
field than in general usage. SGML & XML authoring is one such field, and
validator is such a term.

It is Albert's insistence on the generic use of the term in a field where
it has a more precise meaning that is the problem here. He knows the diff-
erence - it's been explained to him many times - and that means that he's
deliberately trying to mislead potential customers into thinking his product
is something that it's not.

> CSE does a better
> job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light, whereas CSE is
> showing me several lines of syntax that can be corrected and one
> error.

Whether or not it's useful is irrelevant. The problem is that he's lying
about what it does, when he claims that it's a validator, and he's doing
so deliberately in an attempt to mislead potential customers. A motorcycle
is a perfectly good means of transportation - but that doesn't change the
fact that you'd be lying if you called it a truck.

If this product were honestly labeled, I would have bought it. But I will
not give my money to someone whose advertising is fraudulent.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On 11 Aug 00:51, Bear Bottoms wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:02:02 -0500, Sherm Pendley
> wrote:
>
>> Craig writes:
>>
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
>>>>> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>> - -
>>>>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>>>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney
>>>>>> "validator".
>>>>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes
>>>>> sense to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is
>>>>> often bashed by a small number of people who don't like the
>>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything
>>>> it stands
>>>> for.
>>>>
>>>>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know
>>>>> anything about CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
>>>>
>>>> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.
>>>
>>> Ben or Jukka;
>>>
>>> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that
>>> Ben's referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism
>>> is that CSE refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a
>>> name usually ascribed to the W3C site functions.
>>
>> It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the
>> definition of the
>> term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that
>> checks a document against its DTD. Calling something a validator
>> when it doesn't do
>> that is dishonest.
>>
>> Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not
>> being what he
>> claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that
>> validators don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself
>> included) who despise lies on principle, and might have purchased
>> his product if he had marketed
>> it honestly.
>>
>> sherm--
>>
>
> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term
> is commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML
> documents or RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined
> format or language. That is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE
> does a better job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light,
> whereas CSE is showing me several lines of syntax that can be
> corrected and one error.
>

Where is Mr Bottoms's quotation taken from?

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:56:48 -0500, Sherm Pendley
wrote:

> "Bear Bottoms" writes:
>
>> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
>> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document.
>
> Most technical fields have terms that have more specific meaning in that
> field than in general usage. SGML & XML authoring is one such field, and
> validator is such a term.
>
> It is Albert's insistence on the generic use of the term in a field where
> it has a more precise meaning that is the problem here. He knows the
> diff-
> erence - it's been explained to him many times - and that means that he's
> deliberately trying to mislead potential customers into thinking his
> product
> is something that it's not.
>
>> CSE does a better
>> job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light, whereas CSE is
>> showing me several lines of syntax that can be corrected and one
>> error.
>
> Whether or not it's useful is irrelevant. The problem is that he's lying
> about what it does, when he claims that it's a validator, and he's doing
> so deliberately in an attempt to mislead potential customers. A
> motorcycle
> is a perfectly good means of transportation - but that doesn't change the
> fact that you'd be lying if you called it a truck.
>
> If this product were honestly labeled, I would have bought it. But I will
> not give my money to someone whose advertising is fraudulent.
>
> sherm--
>
Well when I think of validating the code on my website, as an end-user I
think of er, validating the code on my webpage. I was not mislead by such
as you describe and if W3C is a Validator and CSE is not, then I need CSE
to do what more it can do for me than W3C.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Bear Bottoms" writes:

> Well when I think of validating the code on my website, as an end-user
> I think of er, validating the code on my webpage.

A validator does indeed validate the code on your web page. But the terms
"valid," "validate," and "validator" all have domain-specific, specialized
meanings when used in the context of SGML and XML authoring, like we're
doing here. These meanings are not as broad or generic as the dictionary
definitions.

If you ask a musician and a banker to define the word "note," you'll get
two very different definitions in response. Likewise if you ask a butcher
and a prison warden to define "shank," or a diver and a politician to
define "platform," or a mechanic and a disk jockey to define "tune."
Domain-specific definitions for common words are not a unique concept; we
use them every day.

CSE is not a validator according to the correct, domain-specific use of
the word. If you think it is, then you have in fact been misled - whether
you're aware of it or not - by the author's incorrect use of the term.

> then I need CSE to do what more it can do for me than W3C.

The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is calling
it a validator, when it's not.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:00:05 -0500, Sherm Pendley
wrote:

> "Bear Bottoms" writes:
>
>> Well when I think of validating the code on my website, as an end-user
>> I think of er, validating the code on my webpage.
>
> A validator does indeed validate the code on your web page. But the terms
> "valid," "validate," and "validator" all have domain-specific,
> specialized
> meanings when used in the context of SGML and XML authoring, like we're
> doing here. These meanings are not as broad or generic as the dictionary
> definitions.
>
> If you ask a musician and a banker to define the word "note," you'll get
> two very different definitions in response. Likewise if you ask a butcher
> and a prison warden to define "shank," or a diver and a politician to
> define "platform," or a mechanic and a disk jockey to define "tune."
> Domain-specific definitions for common words are not a unique concept; we
> use them every day.
>
> CSE is not a validator according to the correct, domain-specific use of
> the word. If you think it is, then you have in fact been misled - whether
> you're aware of it or not - by the author's incorrect use of the term.
>
>> then I need CSE to do what more it can do for me than W3C.
>
> The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is
> calling
> it a validator, when it's not.
>
> sherm--
>
Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
software authors. If his program validates the code on my website, then
his software is a validator in my book. Grey Poupon anyone?


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Franklin wrote:
> On 11 Aug 00:51, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
>>>
>> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
>> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term
>> is commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML
>> documents or RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined
>> format or language. That is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE
>> does a better job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light,
>> whereas CSE is showing me several lines of syntax that can be
>> corrected and one error.
>>
>
> Where is Mr Bottoms's quotation taken from?


would be my guess.

-Craig

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Scripsit Bear Bottoms:

> If his program validates the code on my website,
> then his software is a validator in my book.

Even when it claims that code is valid when it is not, or vice versa?

You apparently did not check the past discussions in alt.html. There is no
point in repeating it again and again. But there was a reason to give a
short warning about the fake "validator" when it was advertized once again.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:35:13
GMT Bear Bottoms scribed:

>> The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is
>> calling
>> it a validator, when it's not.
>>
>> sherm--
>>
> Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
> software authors. If his program validates the code on my website,
> then his software is a validator in my book. Grey Poupon anyone?

I know nothing about CSE, and believe I have no pre-judgmental attitudes
regarding it, pro or con. But s'pose you have 2 different web pages. Cse
says the first is 100% valid and the w3c validator says the second is 100%
valid. Which opinion can one have more faith in?

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Neredbojias schreef:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:35:13
> GMT Bear Bottoms scribed:
>
>>> The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is
>>> calling
>>> it a validator, when it's not.
>>>
>>> sherm--
>>>
>> Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
>> software authors. If his program validates the code on my website,
>> then his software is a validator in my book. Grey Poupon anyone?
>
> I know nothing about CSE, and believe I have no pre-judgmental attitudes
> regarding it, pro or con. But s'pose you have 2 different web pages. Cse
> says the first is 100% valid and the w3c validator says the second is 100%
> valid. Which opinion can one have more faith in?
>

2 different web pages doesn't mean that one of them is not valid.
If CSE 'validates' the first, that doesn't mean the second is faulty.
Likewise if W3C validates the second, that doesn't mean the first is faulty.

You probably could come up with something better to make your point.

Rob

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Jukka K. Korpela schreef:
> Scripsit Bear Bottoms:
>
>> If his program validates the code on my website,
>> then his software is a validator in my book.
>
> Even when it claims that code is valid when it is not, or vice versa?
>
> You apparently did not check the past discussions in alt.html. There is
> no point in repeating it again and again. But there was a reason to give
> a short warning about the fake "validator" when it was advertized once
> again.
>

Whether or not you check the past discussions,
at least in this thread the point has been made explicitly clear:
validation must be done against a set of rules. CSE doesn't.

--
Rob

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Craig schreef:
> Franklin wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 00:51, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
>>> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term
>>> is commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML
>>> documents or RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined
>>> format or language. That is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE
>>> does a better job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light,
>>> whereas CSE is showing me several lines of syntax that can be
>>> corrected and one error.
>>
>> Where is Mr Bottoms's quotation taken from?
>
>
> would be my guess.
>
> -Craig

Which is a document lacking in quality.

Under the heading Why should I validate
it doesn't give any reasons why validation is important.

Under the heading Importance of validating XHTML code
it doesn't describe *why* it is important to validate xhtml.
It hints at the need for correct syntax, but it gives no reasons why or
what would happen when the syntax is not correct.

Finally it refers to Wikipedia for _lot of really good information on
XHTML_.

--
Rob

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Bear Bottoms schreef:
> Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
> software authors. If his program validates the code on my website, then
> his software is a validator in my book. Grey Poupon anyone?
>
>

Some good things have been said about the workings of CSE

But you still keep missing the point that it doesn't validate *against*
DTD's.

--
Rob

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Bear Bottoms" writes:

> Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
> software authors.

It's called "ethics" - I disapprove of dishonest marketing, so I refuse
to purchase products that are marketed dishonestly.

I refuse to eat at Hardee's for the same reason, because of their insulting
"men are too stupid to feed themselves" marketing. I have nothing against
their product, my complaint is the way they advertise it.

> If his program validates the code on my website,

It doesn't validate. It's not a validator. Why is that so hard to understand?

> then his software is a validator in my book.

You don't write the book, or make the definitions. Neither does Albert. The
term "validator" has a specific meaning, and neither one of you gets to
redefine it to suit your whims.

> Grey Poupon anyone?

Actually, I quite like those ads. But I don't care much for Dijon mustard -
I prefer brown. Not that I understand the relevance here - the Grey Poupon
ads aren't dishonest.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On 2007-08-10, Craig wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
>>> news:pmLui.204798$ln1.192950@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>> - -
>>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
>>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".
>>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
>>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
>>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.
>>
>> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
>> for.
>>
>>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
>>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
>>
>> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.
>
> Ben or Jukka;
>
> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
> referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
> refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually ascribed
> to the W3C site functions.

The name is misleading, but what I really don't like about the product
is that it encourages completely the wrong way of going about things.

What's the point of an "HTML Editor" at all? HTML is text and there are
plenty of text editors. Invest a bit of effort in learning how to use
one of the more powerful ones and you soon will be able to do everything
the CSE editor does and much more.

A case in point is its various crude "tools" (I think there's one called
the "template" tool for example). So if you want to do the exact thing
the CSE Editor gives you a button for, you click the button. But what if
you want something slightly different? What do you do? Hunt around for a
more expensive version of the editor that has the precise feature you're
looking for? Submit a feature request? Of course not, you write it
yourself in five minutes using the proper editor or scripting languages
you've spent a little worthwhile time getting to know. That's what
anyone who has a clue does.

In order to write HTML pages it is better to understand some of the
basics of text editing, of HTML, and of authoring for the web. I don't
say this because I snootily think only "qualified" or "competent" people
should be allowed to write for the web. On the contrary my point is that
these basics are easy to learn, and all the information and tools needed
are freely available. Fortunately that's how things are done on
computers nowadays.

Finally, if you find the earlier discussion on alt.html, one poster very
quickly found a bug in the CSE "Validator"'s HTML parser. Now software
has bugs in it, that's to be expected, but Albert Wiersch's response
wasn't. In a variant of divine command theory, he denied that it was bug
claiming that whatever the CSE Validator pronounced was correct by
definition. That kind of attitude is worthy of a Microsoft product
manager.

Use a good text editor, tidy, the W3C validators and read a couple of
tutorials. That's much better advice to anyone than to buy the CSE
product, even if it is free for 17.5 hours on some special day of the
year. He can keep it.

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Ben C wrote in
news:slrnfbr8im.8ua.spamspam@bowser.marioworld:

[snip]

> Use a good text editor, tidy, the W3C validators and read a couple of
> tutorials. That's much better advice to anyone than to buy the CSE
> product, even if it is free for 17.5 hours on some special day of the
> year. He can keep it.

This is excellent advice.

Even if someone wanted an editor that had templates and syntax highlighting
and other odd html/css specific features there are other, really free,
freeware softs that do an excellent job.

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:49:57 -0500, Ben C wrote:

> The name is misleading, but what I really don't like about the product
> is that it encourages completely the wrong way of going about things.

No it doesn't, it helps light users find issues with their code.

> What's the point of an "HTML Editor" at all? HTML is text and there are
> plenty of text editors. Invest a bit of effort in learning how to use
> one of the more powerful ones and you soon will be able to do everything
> the CSE editor does and much more.

So you are a HTML guru. Many are not. This sounds like the Linux crowd.

> A case in point is its various crude "tools" (I think there's one called
> the "template" tool for example). So if you want to do the exact thing
> the CSE Editor gives you a button for, you click the button. But what if
> you want something slightly different? What do you do? Hunt around for a
> more expensive version of the editor that has the precise feature you're
> looking for? Submit a feature request? Of course not, you write it
> yourself in five minutes using the proper editor or scripting languages
> you've spent a little worthwhile time getting to know. That's what
> anyone who has a clue does.

This is a egotistical rant. So if folks don't do what you do, they haven't
a clue and shouldn't be doing it eh. Many people without high level HTML
skills are able to put out fairly good web pages using these tools. If you
are an expert, I would imagine you wouldn't need them.

> In order to write HTML pages it is better to understand some of the
> basics of text editing, of HTML, and of authoring for the web.

I do understand the basics. I make most of my modifications in the code,
as sometimes the editors leave a lot of trash in the code when you cut and
paste. If you use an editor at all, these validation tools are very
helpful with cleaning up the code and finding errors. That is what they
try to do, help non-experts. It certainly isn't a nefarious attempt at
anything. If your skills are at the level where you don't need their help,
swell...

> I don't
> say this because I snootily think only "qualified" or "competent" people
> should be allowed to write for the web. On the contrary my point is that
> these basics are easy to learn, and all the information and tools needed
> are freely available. Fortunately that's how things are done on
> computers nowadays.

Your whole rant is filled with snooty crap.

> Finally, if you find the earlier discussion on alt.html, one poster very
> quickly found a bug in the CSE "Validator"'s HTML parser. Now software
> has bugs in it, that's to be expected, but Albert Wiersch's response
> wasn't. In a variant of divine command theory, he denied that it was bug
> claiming that whatever the CSE Validator pronounced was correct by
> definition. That kind of attitude is worthy of a Microsoft product
> manager.

He was probably technically right. Lots of snooty little people out there.

> Use a good text editor, tidy, the W3C validators and read a couple of
> tutorials. That's much better advice to anyone than to buy the CSE
> product, even if it is free for 17.5 hours on some special day of the
> year. He can keep it.

I use W3C or did, and it was good enough for my purposes. When the free
offer for CSE came about, I grabbed it up as it does a much better job for
me than W3C.



--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:42:17 -0500, bealoid wrote:

> Ben C wrote in
> news:slrnfbr8im.8ua.spamspam@bowser.marioworld:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Use a good text editor, tidy, the W3C validators and read a couple of
>> tutorials. That's much better advice to anyone than to buy the CSE
>> product, even if it is free for 17.5 hours on some special day of the
>> year. He can keep it.
>
> This is excellent advice.
>
> Even if someone wanted an editor that had templates and syntax
> highlighting
> and other odd html/css specific features there are other, really free,
> freeware softs that do an excellent job.
>
I've almost graduated to the level where such a text editor is becoming
more and more useful to me. In fact, I am using one more and more these
days. I still use Komposer and check my code through /used to be W3C/ now
CSE as it performs better and catches more. Your advice is directed at and
good for those whose level of expertise is a bit higher than mine, which
is far from basic yet farther from expert.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis->
>
> Well, there you go Albert, no matter what the truth is, there are
> some knowledgeable people getting a certain impression. So, see
> what you can change in your advertising to reflect the good
> things in your product and modify the claims that are giving this
> impression.

One of the reasons I decided to include a DTD based validator with CSE HTML
Validator Std/Pro v8.0+ was to try to address these "naming" issues, but
adding a DTD based validator doesn't seem to have helped at all. I like to
please but I understand you can't please everyone!

By the way, I have NEVER claimed it to be a DTD based validator.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Sherm Pendley" wrote in message
news:m2wsw2bzq7.fsf@dot-app.org...
>
> Whether or not it's useful is irrelevant. The problem is that he's lying
> about what it does, when he claims that it's a validator, and he's doing
> so deliberately in an attempt to mislead potential customers. A motorcycle
> is a perfectly good means of transportation - but that doesn't change the
> fact that you'd be lying if you called it a truck.

Sorry, no. I am not lying and misleading to sell more product and you have
nothing to back that claim up. Besides, a DTD based validator is now
included with CSE HTML Validator Std/Pro v8.0+ for those who want to use
one.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Rob Waaijenberg" wrote in message
news:46bd8a7a$0$245>
>
> Whether or not you check the past discussions,
> at least in this thread the point has been made explicitly clear:
> validation must be done against a set of rules. CSE doesn't.

It seems everyone is ignoring the fact that current std/pro editions of CSE
HTML Validator can check based on a DTD based validator - what the critics
would contend is the ONLY way to validate a document.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Rob Waaijenberg" wrote in message
news:46bd8e19$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> Some good things have been said about the workings of CSE
>
> But you still keep missing the point that it doesn't validate *against*
> DTD's.

Yes, it does have that option in the current std/pro editions.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Sherm Pendley" wrote in message
news:m2fy2qbbdt.fsf@dot-app.org...
>
> You don't write the book, or make the definitions. Neither does Albert.
> The
> term "validator" has a specific meaning, and neither one of you gets to
> redefine it to suit your whims.

I didn't make the definition up either. There is a common definition of
"validator" as well as a specific one. Most people use the common one and
that's what I used when I originally named the program.

It only seems to be dishonest marketing for those that only understand one
definition of "validator". And now that std/pro v8.0+ includes a DTD based
validator, even the critics should be happy, but they're not. As hard as I
try, I can't please everyone!

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:42:36 -0500, Craig
wrote:

> Franklin wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 00:51, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
>>> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term
>>> is commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML
>>> documents or RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined
>>> format or language. That is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE
>>> does a better job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light,
>>> whereas CSE is showing me several lines of syntax that can be
>>> corrected and one error.
>> Where is Mr Bottoms's quotation taken from?
>
>
> would be my guess.
>
> -Craig

I just did a search for definition and grabbed the first one that looked
good.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:42:38 -0500, Sherm Pendley
wrote:

>> If his program validates the code on my website,
> It doesn't validate. It's not a validator. Why is that so hard to
> understand?

What does it do corrector?

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:37:31 -0500, Neredbojias
wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:35:13
> GMT Bear Bottoms scribed:
>
>>> The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is
>>> calling
>>> it a validator, when it's not.
>>>
>>> sherm--
>>>
>> Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
>> software authors. If his program validates the code on my website,
>> then his software is a validator in my book. Grey Poupon anyone?
>
> I know nothing about CSE, and believe I have no pre-judgmental attitudes
> regarding it, pro or con. But s'pose you have 2 different web pages.
> Cse
> says the first is 100% valid and the w3c validator says the second is
> 100%
> valid. Which opinion can one have more faith in?
>
CSE is the answer. I can give you proof of the pudding. Go validate my
website with W3C http://bearbottoms1.com. It gets a clean bill of health
whereas when I just recently downloaded the free offer for the payware
version of CSE, and it found one error and about 10 issues. I've been
going through those and they are valid issues.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:23:00 -0500, Jukka K. Korpela
wrote:

> Scripsit Bear Bottoms:
>
>> If his program validates the code on my website,
>> then his software is a validator in my book.
>
> Even when it claims that code is valid when it is not, or vice versa?
>
> You apparently did not check the past discussions in alt.html. There is
> no point in repeating it again and again. But there was a reason to give
> a short warning about the fake "validator" when it was advertized once
> again.
>
I am very aware of the snittiness in newsgroups. CSE performs better than
W3C regardless of that snittiness.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:07:53 -0500, Rob Waaijenberg
wrote:

> Jukka K. Korpela schreef:
>> Scripsit Bear Bottoms:
>>
>>> If his program validates the code on my website,
>>> then his software is a validator in my book.
>> Even when it claims that code is valid when it is not, or vice versa?
>> You apparently did not check the past discussions in alt.html. There
>> is no point in repeating it again and again. But there was a reason to
>> give a short warning about the fake "validator" when it was advertized
>> once again.
>>
>
> Whether or not you check the past discussions,
> at least in this thread the point has been made explicitly clear:
> validation must be done against a set of rules. CSE doesn't.
>
So what, CSE does a better job of cleaning/validating/correcting code in a
webpage than W3C...maybe the snits should consider that.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Bear Bottoms wrote:

> CSE is the answer. I can give you proof of the pudding. Go validate my
> website with W3C http://bearbottoms1.com. It gets a clean bill of health
> whereas when I just recently downloaded the free offer for the payware
> version of CSE, and it found one error and about 10 issues. I've been
> going through those and they are valid issues.
>
>

Valid means that it follows the proper rules and syntax it does not
necessarily mean *good* design. Aside of your page being clumsy vintage
1990's coding what are the *issues* CSE InValidator found?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

In alt.html, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> CSE is the answer. I can give you proof of the pudding. Go validate
>> my website with W3C http://bearbottoms1.com. It gets a clean bill of
>> health whereas when I just recently downloaded the free offer for
>> the payware version of CSE, and it found one error and about 10
>> issues. I've been going through those and they are valid issues.
>
> Valid means that it follows the proper rules and syntax it does not
> necessarily mean *good* design. Aside of your page being clumsy
> vintage 1990's coding what are the *issues* CSE InValidator found?



?

I would write that as:



Moving along...:





'Twas funny sending it to the w3c validator and overriding as Strict:
"Failed validation, 1527 Errors"

Bear, your page needs more help than either W3C or Albert can give you.
:-)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On 2007-08-11, Bear Bottoms wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:49:57 -0500, Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> A case in point is its various crude "tools" (I think there's one called
>> the "template" tool for example). So if you want to do the exact thing
>> the CSE Editor gives you a button for, you click the button. But what if
>> you want something slightly different? What do you do? Hunt around for a
>> more expensive version of the editor that has the precise feature you're
>> looking for? Submit a feature request? Of course not, you write it
>> yourself in five minutes using the proper editor or scripting languages
>> you've spent a little worthwhile time getting to know. That's what
>> anyone who has a clue does.
>
> This is a egotistical rant. So if folks don't do what you do, they haven't
> a clue and shouldn't be doing it eh.

Rubbish. I was quite careful to point out that that is exactly _not_
what I am trying to say.

> Many people without high level HTML skills are able to put out fairly
> good web pages using these tools. If you are an expert, I would
> imagine you wouldn't need them.

My whole point is that you don't have to be an "expert" not to need
these tools.

>> In order to write HTML pages it is better to understand some of the
>> basics of text editing, of HTML, and of authoring for the web.
>
> I do understand the basics. I make most of my modifications in the
> code, as sometimes the editors leave a lot of trash in the code when
> you cut and paste.

Why do you use an editor that leaves "trash" around when you cut and
paste??

> If you use an editor at all, these validation tools are very helpful
> with cleaning up the code and finding errors. That is what they try
> to do, help non-experts.

I see, so you start with an even worse tool and then clean up the trash
it produced with CSE Validator. I suppose life is too simple for you.
You must be quite an expert to be able to produce anything at all with
such an approach.

> It certainly isn't a nefarious attempt at anything. If your skills
> are at the level where you don't need their help, swell...

Where did you get the idea that it requires _less skill_ to use editors
that insert trash and the CSE Validator? This is a serious question.

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Yrrah" wrote in message
>
> The free version has no validator, only a very rudimentary and
> completely useless syntax checker of some sorts.

No, it's not completely useless. Just because it is not as good doesn't mean
it is completely useless. Lots of people use it and it meets their needs.

And it does validate... not in the DTD sense, but in the common use of the
word "validator" sense.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:14:27 -0500, Jonathan N. Little =

wrote:

> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
>> CSE is the answer. I can give you proof of the pudding. Go validate m=
y =

>> website with W3C http://bearbottoms1.com. It gets a clean bill of =

>> health whereas when I just recently downloaded the free offer for the=
=

>> payware version of CSE, and it found one error and about 10 issues. =

>> I've been going through those and they are valid issues.
>>
>
> Valid means that it follows the proper rules and syntax it does not =

> necessarily mean *good* design. Aside of your page being clumsy vintag=
e =

> 1990's coding what are the *issues* CSE InValidator found?
>
LOL...now you are trolling. My page is a simple listing of programs in =

several tables and mouseover descriptions broken into categories. It is =
=

designed that way to be compact, easy to navigate and load fast while =

still getting out pertinant information and links. The only thing I coul=
d =

actually do is use CSS style sheets instead of font tags to improve it =

very much.

So you see that W3C validate the page http://bearbottoms1.com:

Here is some of what it says after as you verified W3C validates the fil=
e:

Validator message export for "F:\Awardspace\1index.html":
Generated by CSE HTML Validator Standard v8.04 =

(http://www.htmlvalidator.com/)

1. Error in line 9 at character 1: (Styles->Parsing) Trying to specify a=
=

comment? In CSS, to specify a comment, use the "/* comment here */" =

format. Begin the comment with "/*" and end the comment with "*/" (witho=
ut =

the quotes). The comment may span multiple lines.

2. Warning in line 12 at character 362: =
has =

been used more than once.

3. Warning in line 12 at character 482: (Grouped->Search Engine) The =

content for the robots meta tag contains spaces. It is recommended that =
=

these spaces be removed. For example, use "index,follow" instead.

4. Warning in line 13 at character 102: Because of issues with the =

Netscape implementation of JavaScript when language=3D"JavaScript1.2" is=
=

explicitly requested, it is usually best to not explicitly set =

language=3D"JavaScript1.2". Furthermore, relying on the nonconforming =

JavaScript behavior of Netscape when JavaScript1.2 is specified is not =

recommended. It is recommended that something else be specified for =

"language" or that the deprecated "language" attribute be removed =

altogether and the standards compliant "type" attribute be used instead,=
=

like type=3D"text/javascript". This message is displayed only once when =
=

"JavaScript1.2" is first used.

5. Warning in line 13 at character 140: The script content will be ignor=
ed =

because the "script" tag has a "src" attribute. In this case, the script=
=

referenced by the "src" attribute will be used and the content of "scrip=
t" =

will be ignored (per the HTML/XHTML specification).

6. Error in line 48 at character 12: This table doesn't appear to have t=
he =

same number of cells in each of its 2 rows. Number of cells in each row,=
=

starting with the first row: 3, 2. Note that for the purposes of this =

message, a table cell with a "colspan" or "rowspan" value greater than 1=
=

is considered to be multiple cells.

7. Warning in line 48 at character 203: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 2)) Style sheets should be used t=
o =

control layout and presentation [P2, 3.3]. The element you've used ("big=
") =

is a presentational element. Presentational elements include "font", "b"=
, =

"i", "big", "small", and others. For presentation, consider using style =
=

sheets (CSS) instead. Use HTML elements only for content and structure a=
nd =

not for layout and presentation. Use the "em" and "strong" elements for =
=

structural emphasis. This message is displayed only once.

8. Warning in line 77 at character 511: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 2)) Until user agents allow users=
=

to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to =

appear and do not change the current window without informing the user =

[P2, 10.1]. Avoid using target=3D"_blank" because spawning a new window =
can =

be confusing and disorienting to the user. If a new window must be =

spawned, then it is recommended that it be indicated in the link =

description, such as by using the text "new window" somewhere in the =

"title" attribute value (recommended) or by adding "(new window)" to the=
=

link description. This message is displayed up to 3 times.

9. Warning in line 78 at character 730: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 2)) Until user agents allow users=
=

to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to =

appear and do not change the current window without informing the user =

[P2, 10.1]. Avoid using target=3D"_blank" because spawning a new window =
can =

be confusing and disorienting to the user. If a new window must be =

spawned, then it is recommended that it be indicated in the link =

description, such as by using the text "new window" somewhere in the =

"title" attribute value (recommended) or by adding "(new window)" to the=
=

link description. This message is displayed up to 3 times.

10. Warning in line 79 at character 1047: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 2)) Until user agents allow users=
=

to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to =

appear and do not change the current window without informing the user =

[P2, 10.1]. Avoid using target=3D"_blank" because spawning a new window =
can =

be confusing and disorienting to the user. If a new window must be =

spawned, then it is recommended that it be indicated in the link =

description, such as by using the text "new window" somewhere in the =

"title" attribute value (recommended) or by adding "(new window)" to the=
=

link description. This message is displayed up to 3 times.

11. Warning in line 229 at character 284: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 3)) Adjacent links should include=
=

non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between them [P3, =
=

10.5]. Do not place two links next to each other without non-linked, =

printable characters between them because the two links may be rendered =
as =

a single link in some user agents.

12. Warning in line 230 at character 10: The "a" tag contains no link =

text. Though it is not technically required, it is recommended that all =
=

"a" elements contain appropriate link text or an appropriate element, li=
ke =

"img".

13. Warning in line 321 at character 283: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 3)) Adjacent links should include=
=

non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between them [P3, =
=

10.5]. Do not place two links next to each other without non-linked, =

printable characters between them because the two links may be rendered =
as =

a single link in some user agents.

14. Warning in line 322 at character 10: The "a" tag contains no link =

text. Though it is not technically required, it is recommended that all =
=

"a" elements contain appropriate link text or an appropriate element, li=
ke =

"img".

15. Warning in line 371 at character 257: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 3)) Adjacent links should include=
=

non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between them [P3, =
=

10.5]. Do not place two links next to each other without non-linked, =

printable characters between them because the two links may be rendered =
as =

a single link in some user agents.

16. Warning in line 372 at character 10: The "a" tag contains no link =

text. Though it is not technically required, it is recommended that all =
=

"a" elements contain appropriate link text or an appropriate element, li=
ke =

"img".

17. Warning in line 453 at character 273: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 3)) Adjacent links should include=
=

non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between them [P3, =
=

10.5]. Do not place two links next to each other without non-linked, =

printable characters between them because the two links may be rendered =
as =

a single link in some user agents.

18. Warning in line 454 at character 10: The "a" tag contains no link =

text. Though it is not technically required, it is recommended that all =
=

"a" elements contain appropriate link text or an appropriate element, li=
ke =

"img".

19. Warning in line 459 at character 335: (Accessibility->Web Content =

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Priority 3)) Adjacent links should include=
=

non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between them [P3, =
=

10.5]. Do not place two links next to each other without non-linked, =

printable characters between them because the two links may be rendered =
as =

a single link in some user agents.

20. Warning in line 460 at character 10: The "a" tag contains no link =

text. Though it is not technically required, it is recommended that all =
=

"a" elements contain appropriate link text or an appropriate element, li=
ke =

"img".

21. Warning in line 544 at character 137: [64] An invalid character =

reference was found in the "onmouseover" attribute value. Often this is =
=

because the ampersand character was not properly encoded as the entity =

"&". Other causes of invalid references are misspelled entity names =
=

and missing semicolons.

22. Warning in line 651 at character 34: It appears that two (or more) =

consecutive forward slash characters ("//") were used in this URL where =
=

only one should have been used. This may cause problems in some browsers=
.. =

Please check the link.

23. Error in line 694: Terminating validation due to too many warnings. =
=

Please correct the previous warnings and recheck the document. HTML =

Validator is currently set to stop after 20 warnings.

24. Comment: "Errors and warnings only" mode enabled. This is, for the =

most part, a thorough validation (but not a completely thorough =

validation).



-- =

Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:39:33 -0500, Ben C wrote:

> On 2007-08-11, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:49:57 -0500, Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> A case in point is its various crude "tools" (I think there's one
>>> called
>>> the "template" tool for example). So if you want to do the exact thing
>>> the CSE Editor gives you a button for, you click the button. But what
>>> if
>>> you want something slightly different? What do you do? Hunt around for
>>> a
>>> more expensive version of the editor that has the precise feature
>>> you're
>>> looking for? Submit a feature request? Of course not, you write it
>>> yourself in five minutes using the proper editor or scripting languages
>>> you've spent a little worthwhile time getting to know. That's what
>>> anyone who has a clue does.
>>
>> This is a egotistical rant. So if folks don't do what you do, they
>> haven't
>> a clue and shouldn't be doing it eh.
>
> Rubbish. I was quite careful to point out that that is exactly _not_
> what I am trying to say.

All the while saying it.
>
>> Many people without high level HTML skills are able to put out fairly
>> good web pages using these tools. If you are an expert, I would
>> imagine you wouldn't need them.
>
> My whole point is that you don't have to be an "expert" not to need
> these tools.
>
Then I must be below beginner.

>>> In order to write HTML pages it is better to understand some of the
>>> basics of text editing, of HTML, and of authoring for the web.
>>
>> I do understand the basics. I make most of my modifications in the
>> code, as sometimes the editors leave a lot of trash in the code when
>> you cut and paste.
>
> Why do you use an editor that leaves "trash" around when you cut and
> paste??
>
It's free?

>> If you use an editor at all, these validation tools are very helpful
>> with cleaning up the code and finding errors. That is what they try
>> to do, help non-experts.
>
> I see, so you start with an even worse tool and then clean up the trash
> it produced with CSE Validator. I suppose life is too simple for you.
> You must be quite an expert to be able to produce anything at all with
> such an approach.
>
I'm no expert at all at web based composition. I have a useful enough page
out there though.

>> It certainly isn't a nefarious attempt at anything. If your skills
>> are at the level where you don't need their help, swell...
>
> Where did you get the idea that it requires _less skill_ to use editors
> that insert trash and the CSE Validator? This is a serious question.

Well, I only have basic knowledge of HTML, less of CSS, none on PHP, very
little on java, etc etc. I get along well enough to put a useful site up
that is becoming more and more popular. You wanna clean it up for me? For
free of course. I'll take any help I can get.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Albert Wiersch schreef:
>
> And it does validate... not in the DTD sense, but in the common use of the
> word "validator" sense.
>
> Albert

And in marking up web pages, the common use would be...?

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Ben C" wrote in message
news:slrnfbr8im.8ua.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>
> In order to write HTML pages it is better to understand some of the
> basics of text editing, of HTML, and of authoring for the web. I don't
> say this because I snootily think only "qualified" or "competent" people
> should be allowed to write for the web. On the contrary my point is that
> these basics are easy to learn, and all the information and tools needed
> are freely available. Fortunately that's how things are done on
> computers nowadays.

If HTML specific tools didn't add value to the free stuff out there, then
they wouldn't exist. Just because you don't see the need, doesn't mean these
tools are not useful for others.

>
> Finally, if you find the earlier discussion on alt.html, one poster very
> quickly found a bug in the CSE "Validator"'s HTML parser. Now software
> has bugs in it, that's to be expected, but Albert Wiersch's response
> wasn't. In a variant of divine command theory, he denied that it was bug
> claiming that whatever the CSE Validator pronounced was correct by
> definition. That kind of attitude is worthy of a Microsoft product
> manager.

Actually, this another completely wrong statement. If it was a bug, then I
would have said it was. Someone who has the source code is better able to
determine the cause of reported "bugs" than someone who doesn't. Just
because something doesn't work the way YOU THINK it should work, doesn't
make it a bug.

When there is a bug, I have no problem saying it is. I strive for bug-free
software but nevertheless bugs do occur as with virtually all software,
especially software as complex as CSE HTML Validator.

> Use a good text editor, tidy, the W3C validators and read a couple of
> tutorials. That's much better advice to anyone than to buy the CSE
> product, even if it is free for 17.5 hours on some special day of the
> year. He can keep it.

That may be fine for you, but others see plenty of value in tools like CSE
HTML Validator and other paid-for tools.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Rob Waaijenberg" wrote in message
news:46be14e9$0$242>
>
> And in marking up web pages, the common use would be...?

Finding potential problems and issues.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

"Yrrah" wrote in message
news:hrkrb3lf5f1nid9072cqgaadp3ve451lpm@isp.com...
>
> Unnecessary and undesirable.

You may see it that way, but it helps keep theft down which ultimately
benefits everyone (except the thieves). It's not nearly as bad for the
customer as I've seen in other systems (Windows comes to mind!).

>> Since CSE HTML Validator has
>> a link checker, it may also be that it's trying to verify some links and
>> needs outward access for that.
>
> Make that an option instead of a standard feature.

It is optional. It's on by default but can be turned off.

> And why are the standard version exe en dll files so much smaller than
> the freeware files, although the free version has fewer features and
> lacks the 'validator'?

Different compression. The free edition is not compressed like the std/pro
editions.

Albert

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:40:21 -0500, Steve T. > =

wrote:

> "Bear Bottoms" wrote:
>
>> My page is a simple listing of programs
>
> 3">
> > size=3D"3">
> color=3D"#112168" size=3D"3">
> >
> > color=3D"#112168" size=3D"3">
> > size=3D"3">
> color=3D"#112168" size=3D"3">
> > color=3D"#112168" size=3D"3">
>
> Sorry, but that is crap html. For a start, FONT is deprecated.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
> You'd better learn some CSS.
>
> You see, 'transitional' is rather meaningless, you get away with a
> lot, too much in fact. Try html 4.01 strict (or better still xhtml).
>
> Steve T.

Actually Kompozer sets it like that. Works well enough. The only think =

strict does is list all of the font tags as above. It wants me to use CS=
S =

style sheets also. Maybe I'll get around to looking into that. Not very =
=

high on my priority list however.

-- =

Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page