- 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