- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:26:22 +0300
- To: www-validator@w3.org
- Cc: Petr Nalevka <petr@nalevka.com>, Osmo Saarikumpu <osmo@kotikone.fi>
On Sep 2, 2005, at 12:48, Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> But isn't it pedantic that when Relaxed is presented, the focus tends >> to be "That's not a validator. Don't call it a validator!" (even >> though it is according to the RELAX NG and Schematron sense of >> "validator") instead of focus being on the fact that Nalevka's >> schemas capture the constraints expressed in W3C spec prose better >> than the normative DTDs? > > I'd have to disagree on the focus of the discussion (most of it I've > carried out privately with Petr). I'm sure that everybody welcomes new > software such as Relaxed. I was not referring to only this discussion but to reactions to Relaxed in general. When I mentioned Relax in c.i.w.a.h, no one commented about the service being useful or anything like that. The only thing that got attention was that it should not be called a validator. > The issue concerning it's name is just one aspect of making it better > and more accurate. I agree that not calling it "the HTML validator" would help a lot--in particular by steering the discussion away from the topic of the accuracy of the title. > Validator or not, RELAX NG and Schematron are too cryptic to be > included in the name of the service. I disagree, but without qualifying the word "validator" with those names, the "it is not a validator" issue will come up again and again drawing attention away from the substance of the service. :-( -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 22:26:45 UTC