Re: Validation as EARL

While I see the good things EARL has to offer, it has one drawback that I can't get past ...
Seems to me that EARL is essentially a whole different way of presenting the document structure (rather than the XML DOM).  So, then by (my) definition, conversions between the two implies output out-of-context.  If I have it all wrong, I'd be delighted to be corrected.

The advantage of working with an XML DOM is that the output can be iterated (the output is self-similar, another XML document).  I do not think this is the case with EARL.

The validation page I mentioned uses the MSIE v.3 DOM object to parse and validate XHTML
against local copies of the DTD's (which are available at the W3).  I wrote it for use at my work
so that the web authors for the IntraNet did not have to go "outside" to the WWW to validate.  For
some reason, they like it better when their messy, barely viable HTML does not go public in any way shape or form.  Sometimes they are almost human :=O