W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2002

[ANNOUNCE: gmuck] (Was: Re: Validator output and standards conformance)

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: 10 Apr 2002 00:18:09 +0300
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1018387089.12384.185.camel@bobcat.ods.org>
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 16:49, Terje Bless wrote:

[...]

> >Just for fun, I asked the HTML-validator to validate the document
> >returned by the HTML validator [and it failed to validate].
> >
> >This is from an ordinary user's point of view a mere curiosity, but from
> >the point of view of whether W3C lives up to its own standards, it can
> >be regarded as an embarrasing deficiency.
> 
> It is. That's why I'm working hard to fix it right now and, presumably, why
> Ville Skyttä has been subtly sending me patches for the the HTML output
> lately. Right, Ville? :-)

Yes.  And there is another reason:

<ad>
I've released gmuck, the Generated MarkUp ChecKer last week.  gmuck 
assists CGI-and-the-like authors in producing valid (X)HTML by examining
the source code that generates it.  It is *not* a replacement for Real
Validation Tools, but can be handy in situations where validation of the
actual produced markup is hard.

...and of course, I had to use the W3C Validator CGI's and HTML pages as
one testbed :)

gmuck is available from its homepage, <http://gmuck.sourceforge.net/> as
well as CPAN, <http://www.cpan.org/>.

All feedback on gmuck is very much appreciated!
</ad>

Cheers,
-- 
Ville Skyttä
ville.skytta@iki.fi
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 17:18:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:03 GMT