Re: checklink: very nice


I understand that (now). I am questioning whether others that come to
the site to check their pages understand that the validator is not for
finding common problems. I believe early on the validator was promoted
(by others not necessarily the w3c) as a great tool for finding bugs in
html. This is probably because it also checks for well-formedness, which
is where most people had problems.

Also the todo list
entertains link checking, "fixing" html and perhaps other items
suggesting more than pure validation.
And, there are other products that do lint checking that are calling
themselves validators...

In any event, I claim there is a popular (mis)conception about the
purpose of the W3C validator and a sentence or two would clarify that.
I don't see that we need to debate the issue. You can choose to ignore
the suggestion.


Lloyd Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tex Texin wrote:
> > Unfortunately, at least to me, the word validator does not imply that it
> > only checks against dtd rules.
> > It implies to me that the checked page is valid, which can include lint
> > checking.
> lint has nothing to do with validity. lint flags common problems,
> nothing more.
> L.
> <><>

Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898
Xen Master                
Making e-Business Work Around the World

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 15:31:56 UTC