- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:44:03 +0200
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: >It is irrelevant whether this grammar is expressed in DTD, RELAX >NG or W3C XML Schema. Not entirely — or at least so the Schema adherents would argue — but more importantly, for most relevant published standards the only normative conformance criteria are a DTD or set of DTDs. W3C Recommendations whose normative definition is provided in the form of a Schema of some sort are only just beginning to appear. >I don't think that problem is name "validator" per se, but fact that many >people are unable to see distinction between validity and conformance. This is a different issue. The term “validation” has a specific and established meaning in the SGML (and XML) context. Using this term to descibe a different process is confusing and imprecise. For a tool whose ambition it is to check overall conformance — a superset of what validation provides — it would be more appropriate to label it as a “conformance checker” (note “checker” rather then “validator”); particularly when the tool doesn't perform validation per se at all! -- “Violence accomplishes nothing.” What a contemptible lie! Raw, naked violence has settled more issues throughout history than any other method ever employed. Perhaps the city fathers of Carthage could debate the issue, with Hitler and Alexander as judges?
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 15:44:24 UTC