W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Validator that is "less pedantic" ?

From: Allan Clark <w3v20030406@chickenandporn.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 20:38:24 -0400
Message-ID: <3E90C880.EA193A9D@chickenandporn.com>
To: www-validator@w3.org, derhoermi@gmx.net


While I appreciate the (very) swift response with the desire to be
helpful (similar to "RTM", is RTG a new acronym for "Read The Google"
response?), there are two things I would like to point out:

1) "CC: www-validator@w3.org" != "Please reply directly."

2) Your suggestion shows "all pages mentioning 'html' and 'check'"; I
could do that myself, wading through all 6,680,000 responses.

I'm CC: the list here to further explain myself, since > 0 readers
missed part of it.  Not all validators are so listed.  I'm looking for
"validators that show which browsers don't work with a given page", not
"all files that google shows have the words 'html' and 'check'.  My
query has too many generic terms for search utilities.  I was looking
for an informed redirection, someone who has used a less strict
validator, and finds it functional and useful.

Are you that user?  Do you have that redirection?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Validator that is "less pedantic" ?
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 02:23:54 +0200
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Allan Clark <w3v20030406@chickenandporn.com>
CC: www-validator@w3.org
References: <3E90AF56.9588A1C8@chickenandporn.com>

* Allan Clark wrote:
>We all know that most web page designers misbehave when creating pages. 
>Is there a validator that, rather than saying "your page is not valid
>HTML-4.01", says "your page will work with IE, but not NS >6, NS<=4.79,
>nor Opera" ?

Received on Sunday, 6 April 2003 20:40:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:36 UTC