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

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
   http://www.pinkjuice.com/check/


>>   * 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.

Tobi


-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/