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

Re: Validator that is "less pedantic" ?

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 02:00:34 +0100 (BST)
To: Allan Clark <w3v20030406@chickenandporn.com>
cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0304070146490.1415-100000@jarl.webthing.com>

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Allan Clark wrote:

> I'm CC: the list here to further explain myself, since > 0 readers
> missed part of it.  Not all validators are so listed.

You may be misunderstanding the term validator.  What you describe is
not a validator, but a checking program.  Many of those exist, ranging
from those based on smart and comprehensive markup parsing (such as
Tidy and AccessValet, to name two products Bjoern and I respectively
are involved with) through to ten-minute Perl hacks.

>	  I'm looking for
> "validators that show which browsers don't work with a given page", not

That's a contradiction in terms.  Only a browser can show whether it
will work with a given page.  And even that isn't strictly true, as
system and browser settings are involved: a page may work well with
an author's preferred settings but collapse completely when a user
with poor vision or a higher-DPI monitor increases the text size.

There are checkers that purport to do what you ask, but I couldn't
recommend any of them.  Any such tool that doesn't feature lots of
warnings is snake-oil.

-- 
Nick Kew
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:00:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:08 GMT