Re: W3C Validator Update
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:08:21 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.c ern.ch> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If it presented itself as - I don't know what, let's say for the sake
>> of argument the "W3C Markup Quality Inspector", with a tagline saying
>> that it comprised formal validation +and+ practical checking options[/color]
>
>I'm afraid they will invent something like that some day, if they admit
>that it ain't no validator no more. This will create some new confusion,
>partly much worse than validation. After all, "quality assured" sells
>much better than "valid".[/color]
What value do you see in a valid HTML badge? being valid html is
little relevance to your actual effort in QA., do you care more about
being conformant to some joke statement about HTML as an application
of SGML, or do you care about people actually authoring quality
documents.
If you only care about SGML validation of HTML, then to me you're
living in an irrelevant utopian world, no-one is disagreeing that
"they"* are wrong in using the term valid, or in defaulting to it, yet
you continue to there's any value in the validator at all as I can
see.
I don't know if you're actually intending to claim there's no value in
the validator at all, but that's the impression you're giving. The
impression I get is that strict SGML validation of HTML is of value,
but anything beyond that is useless. I can't agree with that
statement it's trivial to show that given there are not SGML compliant
html implementations (I'd agree with you 100% if you complained that
therefore html 4.01 should not exist as w3 process requires
implementations , W3 process is certainly often flawed) SGML validation
alone can leave numerous situtations which break in the real world.
I'd like to see some constructive comments on how a QA tool could
exist on the web, at the moment you seem to be nothing but negative.
[color=blue]
>So we would see clueless bosses requiring that
>sites get QA stamps, no matter what, and reject any criticism and
>questions on the grounds that our site has been Quality Approved by The
>Consortium, or something like that.[/color]
The W3 makes no such claims about its validator, and in any case how
is that behaviour any different from SGML validation, which is just as
pointless in having in the real world, in fact to me it's considerably
worse, since we know SGML validation is a load of crap which achieves
nothing.
Jim.
* Whoever "they" are, the authors of the validator are pretty well
known, and there's even pretty easy methods to actually communicate
with them directly should you wish.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:08:21 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.c ern.ch> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If it presented itself as - I don't know what, let's say for the sake
>> of argument the "W3C Markup Quality Inspector", with a tagline saying
>> that it comprised formal validation +and+ practical checking options[/color]
>
>I'm afraid they will invent something like that some day, if they admit
>that it ain't no validator no more. This will create some new confusion,
>partly much worse than validation. After all, "quality assured" sells
>much better than "valid".[/color]
What value do you see in a valid HTML badge? being valid html is
little relevance to your actual effort in QA., do you care more about
being conformant to some joke statement about HTML as an application
of SGML, or do you care about people actually authoring quality
documents.
If you only care about SGML validation of HTML, then to me you're
living in an irrelevant utopian world, no-one is disagreeing that
"they"* are wrong in using the term valid, or in defaulting to it, yet
you continue to there's any value in the validator at all as I can
see.
I don't know if you're actually intending to claim there's no value in
the validator at all, but that's the impression you're giving. The
impression I get is that strict SGML validation of HTML is of value,
but anything beyond that is useless. I can't agree with that
statement it's trivial to show that given there are not SGML compliant
html implementations (I'd agree with you 100% if you complained that
therefore html 4.01 should not exist as w3 process requires
implementations , W3 process is certainly often flawed) SGML validation
alone can leave numerous situtations which break in the real world.
I'd like to see some constructive comments on how a QA tool could
exist on the web, at the moment you seem to be nothing but negative.
[color=blue]
>So we would see clueless bosses requiring that
>sites get QA stamps, no matter what, and reject any criticism and
>questions on the grounds that our site has been Quality Approved by The
>Consortium, or something like that.[/color]
The W3 makes no such claims about its validator, and in any case how
is that behaviour any different from SGML validation, which is just as
pointless in having in the real world, in fact to me it's considerably
worse, since we know SGML validation is a load of crap which achieves
nothing.
Jim.
* Whoever "they" are, the authors of the validator are pretty well
known, and there's even pretty easy methods to actually communicate
with them directly should you wish.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Comment