- From: Philip TAYLOR [PC87S-O/XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:25:50 +0100
- 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 UTC