Scripsit dorayme:
Naturally, you concentrate on the negatives.
Being the realistic idealist I am, naturally.
The positives go into brackets.
Yes. Well, not brackets but parentheses.
And most users of the checkers cannot tell the correct messages from the
incorrect, so what's the point? Using a validator can be confusing if
you don't understand what's going on, but at least a validator performs
a well-defined, objectively describable job, in an open manner.
In case you think a custom DTD would be better, consider that
such a thing would be made by me. I would, in my cluelessness,
add stupid things anyway.
Then you shouldn't do it. But that shouldn't prevent you from using
someone else's DTD.
Actually I once planned writing a utility that prompts for a choice of
HTML features (which elements to allow etc.) and generates a
corresponding DTD. That way, anyone could use a customized Document Type
Definition without dealing with the technicalities. But I doubt whether
people would actually use it (after all, they would need to understand
the idea of validation, which has currently been obfuscated a lot), and
surely nobody would pay me for doing it. Besides, DTDs aren't really
that expressive, so there would be a great temptation to add other
checks, and there we go...
