- From: Eric Bednarz <lists@bednarz.nl>
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:17:07 +0200
- To: www-validator@w3.org
<ktsiara@otenet.gr> wrote:
> Our customer suggests
> another HTML validator tool because they claim that the W3C Validator
> is not very strict when validating HTML content.
Make that 'SGML content', and I agree. I've been using NSGMLS locally for
years and never had any funny issues.
> The tool our client suggests (CSE HTML Validator) generates some
> different results when validating the documents.
That's a lint, not a validator; a validator checks conformance to a
generalised machine-processable syntax, a lint reflects the opinions of
its author and asks you to trust that ("I'll be careful, baby" & "the
check is in the post" come to mind).
> Can you please verify if we are XHTML 1.0 Transitional
> compliant if we only use your validation tool,
The W3C validator as is cannot really validate X(HT)ML (but then, CSE
cannot 'validate' anything; be nice and file a lawsuit). The 'valid'
resource might not even be well-formed (but SGML-valid all the same).
--
:Eric
Received on Saturday, 16 September 2006 01:17:52 UTC