- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:42:14 +0100
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 18/02/2015 23:07 , Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >> I recommend using the validator.nu service rather than the W3C one. >> They're basically the same but the validator.nu one is closer to the >> WHATWG spec's requirements than the W3C one. > > The relationship between the two is somewhat obscure, but it is in that > direction. What the different validators check against is really their > authors’ idea of what is correct HTML, so we have yet another > “standard”, defined very implicitly, and mutable. But it indeed appears > to be closer to WHATWG HTML than to W3C HTML5. > > The bottom line is that validators are just useful tools, at best. All > HTML5 validators are experimental software that checks against some > rules that have not been disclosed in detail but are supposed to match > some idea of “HTML5”. Actually, both http://validator.nu and http://validator.w3.org/nu are the same code base with settings adjusted to account for the variance between specs. The relationship isn't "obscure", the code attempts to implement what's in the spec so barring bugs they're not about "the authors' idea of what is correct HTML", and given that the source is open it's hardly a set of "rules that have not been disclosed in detail". https://github.com/validator/validator -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2015 11:42:43 UTC