- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:54:27 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote: > 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. What's wrong with "an HTML checker" as a characterization? It is not a rigorously defined term, and that's exactly why it is suitable. Of course, it is also important to describe what it checks, but that need not be part of the name, even the "extended name" that contains some characterization. Just don't say that it checks conformance to the HTML specification. That would claim too much. It probably does not check all aspects, and the HTML specifications themselves are too vague in their conformance requirements to make it possible to decide objectively whether some checker actually checks conformance. It would probably be too much even to say that it checks the conformance of the syntax, since I'm afraid there are some gray areas there, too. Performing a check against a DTD, and a DTD only, is objectively defined. There's much else that could and should be checked, but then you are in an area where you generally should not claim to be completely objective. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 3 September 2005 17:54:35 UTC