Re: using tidy in Markup Validator

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 04:54:46PM +0100, olivier Thereaux wrote:
> * Tidy's great, but not perfect. I can already see complaints or  
> sarcasm from users who ran their markup through tidy, saved, and were  
> disappointed to see that the result was not necessarily perfect/valid.

Its been a long time since I tried to use tidy in any serious
capacity, but I seem to recall being distinctly underwealmed by it
(possibly because I didn't tend to resort to it until I had /really/
bad documents).

As a validator Tidy has a disturbing number of errors marked as
warnings, so I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole for validation, but
that isn't the intention here.

I don't think it should be added without a long period of being
clearly labeled "EXPERIMENTAL".

I can see integration with the markup validator as being a good way to
get more eyeballs on it and possibly get bugs fixed upstream (and
given the amount of use Tidy gets from people who don't know standards
all that well, this is a good idea).

There is also the concern that this would lead to people depending on
an automatic fixup tool rather then finding out what the error is and
picking the *correct* solution.

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk

Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 16:13:23 UTC