- From: ts <schulz@post5.tele.dk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:13:17 +0100
- To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
Hi, >> It does not include those fixed errors in its error count. > The problems it can fix are usually reported as warnings, > or not reported at all in some cases. I would personally like to suggest a "do not fix" paramater. That way the counts would become correct and possible uses of Tidy would increase. >> it's never meant to be a fully featured HTML >> Validator, or something along that line. ( > please don't hijack other threads. As far as I can tell, in Tidy, Okay. I just saw related topic to what I ealier emailed about to mailing list, and took the opportunity to argue for it again. Sorry best regards Tom -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- From: aditsu Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 2:56 PM To: html-tidy@w3.org Subject: Re: Using Tidy for validation only ts-15 wrote: > > I am not interested in using Tidy for fixing HTML. > I am only interested in getting number of errors and warnings. > Hi, please don't hijack other threads. As far as I can tell, in Tidy, problem reporting and correction are really tied together. You can just ignore the fixed html (discard its output) if you don't need it. > As it is, it seems Tidy only reports errors for HTML it can not fix. > I deduce this from the fact that the HTML it shows in command > line after the call appear to have been modified and "fixed". > It does not include those fixed errors in its error count. > The problems it can fix are usually reported as warnings, or not reported at all in some cases. Adrian -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Using-Tidy-for-validation-only-tp30028662p30308921.html Sent from the w3.org - html-tidy mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 20:14:04 UTC