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

Re: [ANN] W3C Markup Validator 0.6.5 Beta #1

From: Philip TAYLOR [PC87S-O/XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:25:50 +0100
Message-ID: <3F4F545E.29861629@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>



Terje Bless wrote:

[snip]

> Well, the degree can certainly be debated, but I'll grant that in essence you
> are correct. However, it does not follow from the observed facts that «[The
> W3C Markup Validator] does not even try to be a validator any more.»
> 
> In fact, this is patently untrue and demonstrably false.
> 
> It not only attempts this, I claim it _achieves_ this.
> 
> Anyone may challenge the details of the implementation €” and there are areas
> in which we, in minor ways, diverge from the proper behaviour from a SGML POV
> €” but to the best of my knowledge there are no areas where it substantially
> diverges from its goal.

Surely a false negative -- an /intentional/ false negative --
is sufficient for Jukka (and latterly, I) to legitimately claim that
it most certainly /does/ "substantially diverge from its goal".  If
the false negative were an accident, and there were reassurance that
the fussy behaviour would be changed to report "warnings" as opposed
to "errors", I would have no problems accepting the claim; but all
the while that it seems that in fussy mode, what should be mere
warning will be reported as errors, then I'm afraid I have to 
agree with Jukka that it does indeed "substantially diverge from its goal"
and is therefore no longer "a validator" as opposed to an 
[undoubtedly useful] HTML checking tool.

** Phil.
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 09:28:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:09 GMT