W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Tidy and Server Side processing - A quick point.

From: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:13:32 +0200
Message-ID: <009e01bfc1c9$6f7e5200$ede02ed5@chello.se>
To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
Richard Allsebrook:
 
> I realised long ago (using Tidy on my PHP pages) that it
> makes more sense to validate the files which your server
> side processing produces.  Even though my PHP source pages
> validated, the output (due to my dodgy code) didn't.
 
> IMHO, I'm starting to think that it is becoming an increasing
> burden on the continuing development of Tidy.  Dave (and the
> others activily involved in the development of Tidy) have to
> continually re-write good code to bend the rules to allow
> server tags to validate which will never apear in the
> finished document.
 
I agree fully and strongly. The only place where it makes
any sense to worry about HTML correctness and validity is
in the final output. The code residing at the server could
be anything (C code, perl script, ASP, PHP, a human typing
away at lightning speed...) - it doesn't matter if that
is in any way valid according to HTML rules. But the output, 
the thing seen by the clients, must be correct and valid.

Most of the time it's quite feasible to feed the server
output to Tidy. That's what I do when I check my ASP or 
perl code.

So, it might be nice if some non-HTML code (ASP, PHP...)
could be validated as such, but in the long run it's 
nothing to vaste development resources on.

#####################################################################
                         Bertilo Wennergren
                 <http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
                     <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
#####################################################################
Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 15:32:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:43 GMT