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

Re: says it's valid, but it isn't even well-formed

From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:27:03 +0100
Message-ID: <3DF631F7.9060304@pinkjuice.com>
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
CC: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>, W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>

Nick Kew wrote:

>>It would be best if several choices would be offered to the user:
> I'm not sure about that.  For most users, surely the inner workings
> are of little relevance?

It's a fact that no validator is perfect. Offering several choices 
simply increases the quality of the service; if one validator misses an 
error, the other one might catch it.

> Those who know or care about the difference
> are likely to be well able to run the tools locally.

Sure I do, but I use online services like the W3C validator when 
reporting the status of a page to a client, eg via pages such as

>>   * Xerces-C (eg DOMCount or other Xerces-based)
>>   * Xerces-J
> Xerces has (AFAIK) the most complete support for XML validation of
> any (free) software, and is the basis for the forthcoming service
> as well as the existing service at http://valet.webthing.com/ .

libxml's xmllint also is a great validator.

Both had and probably have their issues and bugs.


Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 13:28:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:35 UTC