Re: [GOTD] CSE HTML Validator

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Yrrah, Aug 9, 2007.

  1. Yrrah

    Yrrah Guest

    x-posted alt.comp.freeware,alt.html
    followup-to: alt.comp.freeware

    > http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/cse-html-validator/
    >
    > Payware program offered free today only.


    "You have 18 hours 17 minutes to download and install it."

    This is a very good HTML editor. I've been using the free version
    (lacks the validator) for years. Now you can get the "standard
    version" free of charge and I suggest you grab it while you can.

    I validated three pages and there were a few minor disagreements with
    the (free) W3C Markup Validation Service (http://validator.w3.org/),
    among which one small error which was overlooked by W3C. Oddly enough,
    in all three cases CSE did not recognize the doctype (HTML 4.01
    Transitional). Quite remarkable: the exe file is much smaller than the
    freeware version (3 vs. 4.3 MB); the dll is nearly 400 KB smaller.

    I have not looked at the CSS validator in detail yet, but it appears
    to be OK.

    Negative:
    1. You can't change the colour coding of tags, attributes, values
    etc., but I find the chosen colours OK and not intrusive.
    2. Upon validation it wants to make a 'phone call' out (I have no idea
    why), so instruct your firewall to block that.
    3. No batch validation in this version.

    Yrrah
    Yrrah, Aug 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    Yrrah <> wrote:

    > > http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/cse-html-validator/
    > >
    > > Payware program offered free today only.

    >
    > "You have 18 hours 17 minutes to download and install it."
    >
    > This is a very good HTML editor. I've been using the free version
    > (lacks the validator) for years. Now you can get the "standard
    > version" free of charge and I suggest you grab it while you can.
    >
    > I validated three pages and there were a few minor disagreements with
    > the (free) W3C Markup Validation Service (http://validator.w3.org/),
    > among which one small error which was overlooked by W3C. Oddly enough,
    > in all three cases CSE did not recognize the doctype (HTML 4.01
    > Transitional).


    Hi Yrrah,
    Thanks for sharing the wealth. I'm not very familiar with the CSE
    validator but I'd be wary if the results disagree with those of the W3C
    validator, especially if the CSE validator didn't recognize your
    doctype. Without recognizing that, how can it perform meaningful
    validation?

    Cheers

    --
    Philip
    http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
    Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
    Nikita the Spider, Aug 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scripsit Yrrah:

    > x-posted alt.comp.freeware,alt.html
    > followup-to: alt.comp.freeware


    Overruled; response x-posted to both groups.

    >> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/cse-html-validator/

    - -
    > This is a very good HTML editor.


    It's a subjective checker that is at irregular intervals advertized by its
    author in alt.html and regularly revealed to be highly questionable. Having
    been sold for about ten years under an intentionally false name (it was not
    a validator), its author has now claimed to have added a validator to the
    "CSE HTML Validator".

    Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".

    > 2. Upon validation it wants to make a 'phone call' out (I have no idea
    > why), so instruct your firewall to block that.


    Sounds like malware - adware or worse. It's hardly worth its price.
    TANSTAAFL applies to a high degree.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 9, 2007
    #3
  4. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    news:pmLui.204798$...
    > - -
    >> This is a very good HTML editor.

    >
    > Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".


    And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense to most
    people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed by a small
    number of people who don't like the name. The people who talk bad about it
    also don't really know anything about CSE HTML Validator, except they like
    to bash it. This is evident by the fact that they often say things about the
    program that are incorrect or misleading, so don't believe them.

    >> 2. Upon validation it wants to make a 'phone call' out (I have no idea
    >> why), so instruct your firewall to block that.

    >
    > Sounds like malware - adware or worse. It's hardly worth its price.
    > TANSTAAFL applies to a high degree.


    This is just more bashing and trying to scare people away. The program, as
    many legitimate programs do, contacts home occasionally to verify the
    license. There's no spying or malware involved. Since CSE HTML Validator has
    a link checker, it may also be that it's trying to verify some links and
    needs outward access for that.

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Aug 10, 2007
    #4
  5. "Nikita the Spider" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi Yrrah,
    > Thanks for sharing the wealth. I'm not very familiar with the CSE
    > validator but I'd be wary if the results disagree with those of the W3C
    > validator, especially if the CSE validator didn't recognize your
    > doctype. Without recognizing that, how can it perform meaningful
    > validation?


    Hello,

    CSE HTML Validator actually doesn't require DTDs to generate helpful output,
    though it can help.

    If you want to limit to checking based on DTDs like the W3C validator, then
    you can use only the built-in DTD based validator, but that will mean that
    it won't check CSS, accessibility, links, and it won't look for many other
    common issues and potential problems.

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Aug 10, 2007
    #5
  6. Yrrah

    Bear Bottoms Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:18:21 -0500, Albert Wiersch
    <> wrote:

    >> Sounds like malware - adware or worse. It's hardly worth its price.
    >> TANSTAAFL applies to a high degree.

    >
    > This is just more bashing and trying to scare people away. The program,
    > as
    > many legitimate programs do, contacts home occasionally to verify the
    > license. There's no spying or malware involved. Since CSE HTML Validator
    > has
    > a link checker, it may also be that it's trying to verify some links and
    > needs outward access for that.
    >
    > Albert
    >

    This is IMO even better than W3C validations. It gives better directions
    and finds more issues and the interface is much more involved with
    options. If those who would use it missed the opportunity, because of
    these bashing, blame the bashers.


    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
    ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
    Bear Bottoms, Aug 10, 2007
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    "Albert Wiersch" <> wrote:

    > "Nikita the Spider" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Hi Yrrah,
    > > Thanks for sharing the wealth. I'm not very familiar with the CSE
    > > validator but I'd be wary if the results disagree with those of the W3C
    > > validator, especially if the CSE validator didn't recognize your
    > > doctype. Without recognizing that, how can it perform meaningful
    > > validation?

    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > CSE HTML Validator actually doesn't require DTDs to generate helpful output,
    > though it can help.
    >
    > If you want to limit to checking based on DTDs like the W3C validator, then
    > you can use only the built-in DTD based validator, but that will mean that
    > it won't check CSS, accessibility, links, and it won't look for many other
    > common issues and potential problems.


    Gotcha, thanks. It sounds like this is part validator and part HTML
    conformance checker.

    --
    Philip
    http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
    Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
    Nikita the Spider, Aug 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Yrrah

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch <> wrote:
    >
    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    > news:pmLui.204798$...
    >> - -
    >>> This is a very good HTML editor.

    >>
    >> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".

    >
    > And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
    > to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
    > by a small number of people who don't like the name.


    It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
    for.

    > The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
    > CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.


    It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.
    Ben C, Aug 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Yrrah

    Bear Bottoms Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:10:33 -0500, Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch <> wrote:
    >>
    >> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    >> news:pmLui.204798$...
    >>> - -
    >>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
    >>>
    >>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney
    >>> "validator".

    >>
    >> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
    >> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
    >> by a small number of people who don't like the name.

    >
    > It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
    > for.
    >
    >> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
    >> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.

    >
    > It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.


    Well I guess opinions differ, it is a great program. Considering that, I
    would say yours is an agenda.

    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
    ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
    Bear Bottoms, Aug 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Yrrah

    Craig Guest

    Ben C wrote:
    > On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch <> wrote:
    >> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    >> news:pmLui.204798$...
    >>> - -
    >>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
    >>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".

    >> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
    >> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
    >> by a small number of people who don't like the name.

    >
    > It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
    > for.
    >
    >> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
    >> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.

    >
    > It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.


    Ben or Jukka;

    Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
    referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
    refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually ascribed
    to the W3C site functions.

    tia,
    -Craig
    Craig, Aug 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Craig <> writes:

    > Ben C wrote:
    >> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch <> wrote:
    >>> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:pmLui.204798$...
    >>>> - -
    >>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
    >>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney "validator".
    >>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
    >>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
    >>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.

    >>
    >> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it stands
    >> for.
    >>
    >>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
    >>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.

    >>
    >> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.

    >
    > Ben or Jukka;
    >
    > Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
    > referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
    > refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually
    > ascribed to the W3C site functions.


    It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the definition of the
    term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that checks a
    document against its DTD. Calling something a validator when it doesn't do
    that is dishonest.

    Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not being what he
    claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that validators
    don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself included) who despise
    lies on principle, and might have purchased his product if he had marketed
    it honestly.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 11, 2007
    #11
  12. Yrrah

    Yrrah Guest

    Craig <>:

    > Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
    > referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
    > refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually ascribed
    > to the W3C site functions.


    The free version has no validator, only a very rudimentary and
    completely useless syntax checker of some sorts. The giveaway of
    yesterday 'standard version' has, but it does not do batch validation
    and you may just as well use the on line W3C Validation Service:
    http://validator.w3.org/ or
    http://www.w3schools.com/site/site_validate.asp
    There are more on and off line validators, link checkers etc. (not all
    free), e.g. see:
    http://htmlhelp.com/links/validators.htm
    I have not looked at those though.

    Yrrah
    Yrrah, Aug 11, 2007
    #12
  13. Yrrah

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Sherm Pendley <> wrote:

    > It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the definition of the
    > term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that checks a
    > document against its DTD. Calling something a validator when it doesn't do
    > that is dishonest.
    >
    > Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not being what he
    > claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that validators
    > don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself included) who despise
    > lies on principle, and might have purchased his product if he had marketed
    > it honestly.



    Well, there you go Albert, no matter what the truth is, there are
    some knowledgeable people getting a certain impression. So, see
    what you can change in your advertising to reflect the good
    things in your product and modify the claims that are giving this
    impression.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 11, 2007
    #13
  14. Yrrah

    Bear Bottoms Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:24:20 -0500, Yrrah <>
    wrote:

    > Craig <>:
    >
    >> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
    >> referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
    >> refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually ascribed
    >> to the W3C site functions.

    >
    > The free version has no validator, only a very rudimentary and
    > completely useless syntax checker of some sorts. The giveaway of
    > yesterday 'standard version' has, but it does not do batch validation
    > and you may just as well use the on line W3C Validation Service:
    > http://validator.w3.org/ or
    > http://www.w3schools.com/site/site_validate.asp
    > There are more on and off line validators, link checkers etc. (not all
    > free), e.g. see:
    > http://htmlhelp.com/links/validators.htm
    > I have not looked at those though.
    >
    > Yrrah


    I think not. The online W3C validator does a fair job, but CSE does a much
    better job, with clearer instructions, and many more tools. There actually
    is no comparison...CSE blows W3C out. I've used all 3, W3C...the free CSE
    which I agree is not very good, and the GOTD free giveaway which is
    awesome.

    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
    ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
    Bear Bottoms, Aug 11, 2007
    #14
  15. Yrrah

    Bear Bottoms Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:02:02 -0500, Sherm Pendley <>
    wrote:

    > Craig <> writes:
    >
    >> Ben C wrote:
    >>> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch <> wrote:
    >>>> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:pmLui.204798$...
    >>>>> - -
    >>>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
    >>>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney
    >>>>> "validator".
    >>>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes sense
    >>>> to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is often bashed
    >>>> by a small number of people who don't like the name.
    >>>
    >>> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything it
    >>> stands
    >>> for.
    >>>
    >>>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know anything about
    >>>> CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
    >>>
    >>> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.

    >>
    >> Ben or Jukka;
    >>
    >> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that Ben's
    >> referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism is that CSE
    >> refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a name usually
    >> ascribed to the W3C site functions.

    >
    > It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the definition of
    > the
    > term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that checks a
    > document against its DTD. Calling something a validator when it doesn't
    > do
    > that is dishonest.
    >
    > Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not being what
    > he
    > claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that validators
    > don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself included) who despise
    > lies on principle, and might have purchased his product if he had
    > marketed
    > it honestly.
    >
    > sherm--
    >

    A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
    syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term is
    commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML documents or
    RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined format or language. That
    is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE does a better job. W3C gives my
    webpage a perfect green light, whereas CSE is showing me several lines of
    syntax that can be corrected and one error.


    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
    ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
    Bear Bottoms, Aug 11, 2007
    #15
  16. "Bear Bottoms" <> writes:

    > A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
    > syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document.


    Most technical fields have terms that have more specific meaning in that
    field than in general usage. SGML & XML authoring is one such field, and
    validator is such a term.

    It is Albert's insistence on the generic use of the term in a field where
    it has a more precise meaning that is the problem here. He knows the diff-
    erence - it's been explained to him many times - and that means that he's
    deliberately trying to mislead potential customers into thinking his product
    is something that it's not.

    > CSE does a better
    > job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light, whereas CSE is
    > showing me several lines of syntax that can be corrected and one
    > error.


    Whether or not it's useful is irrelevant. The problem is that he's lying
    about what it does, when he claims that it's a validator, and he's doing
    so deliberately in an attempt to mislead potential customers. A motorcycle
    is a perfectly good means of transportation - but that doesn't change the
    fact that you'd be lying if you called it a truck.

    If this product were honestly labeled, I would have bought it. But I will
    not give my money to someone whose advertising is fraudulent.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 11, 2007
    #16
  17. Yrrah

    Franklin Guest

    On 11 Aug 00:51, Bear Bottoms <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:02:02 -0500, Sherm Pendley
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Craig <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Ben C wrote:
    >>>> On 2007-08-10, Albert Wiersch <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:pmLui.204798$...
    >>>>>> - -
    >>>>>>> This is a very good HTML editor.
    >>>>>> Check Google Groups for alt.html discussions on this phoney
    >>>>>> "validator".
    >>>>> And be sure to read the discussion as to why "validator" makes
    >>>>> sense to most people (say 99% of them) and why the program is
    >>>>> often bashed by a small number of people who don't like the
    >>>>> name.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not just the name. I object to the program and everything
    >>>> it stands
    >>>> for.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The people who talk bad about it also don't really know
    >>>>> anything about CSE HTML Validator, except they like to bash it.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not that I _like_ to bash it. I consider it a duty.
    >>>
    >>> Ben or Jukka;
    >>>
    >>> Would either of you be willing to outline the criticisms that
    >>> Ben's referring to? The best I can gather so far, one criticism
    >>> is that CSE refers to its syntax checker(?) as a validator, a
    >>> name usually ascribed to the W3C site functions.

    >>
    >> It's not ascribed to the W3C site in particular, it's the
    >> definition of the
    >> term "validator." A validator is an SGML or XML based tool that
    >> checks a document against its DTD. Calling something a validator
    >> when it doesn't do
    >> that is dishonest.
    >>
    >> Frankly, I think it's a shame - Albert's product, despite not
    >> being what he
    >> claims it is, is still very useful. It catches problems that
    >> validators don't. He lost a lot of potential customers (myself
    >> included) who despise lies on principle, and might have purchased
    >> his product if he had marketed
    >> it honestly.
    >>
    >> sherm--
    >>

    >
    > A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
    > syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document. The term
    > is commonly used in the context of validating HTML, CSS and XML
    > documents or RSS feeds though it can be used for any defined
    > format or language. That is exactly what CSE and W3C both do. CSE
    > does a better job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light,
    > whereas CSE is showing me several lines of syntax that can be
    > corrected and one error.
    >


    Where is Mr Bottoms's quotation taken from?
    Franklin, Aug 11, 2007
    #17
  18. Yrrah

    Bear Bottoms Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:56:48 -0500, Sherm Pendley <>
    wrote:

    > "Bear Bottoms" <> writes:
    >
    >> A validator is a computer program used to check the validity or
    >> syntactical correctness of a fragment of code or document.

    >
    > Most technical fields have terms that have more specific meaning in that
    > field than in general usage. SGML & XML authoring is one such field, and
    > validator is such a term.
    >
    > It is Albert's insistence on the generic use of the term in a field where
    > it has a more precise meaning that is the problem here. He knows the
    > diff-
    > erence - it's been explained to him many times - and that means that he's
    > deliberately trying to mislead potential customers into thinking his
    > product
    > is something that it's not.
    >
    >> CSE does a better
    >> job. W3C gives my webpage a perfect green light, whereas CSE is
    >> showing me several lines of syntax that can be corrected and one
    >> error.

    >
    > Whether or not it's useful is irrelevant. The problem is that he's lying
    > about what it does, when he claims that it's a validator, and he's doing
    > so deliberately in an attempt to mislead potential customers. A
    > motorcycle
    > is a perfectly good means of transportation - but that doesn't change the
    > fact that you'd be lying if you called it a truck.
    >
    > If this product were honestly labeled, I would have bought it. But I will
    > not give my money to someone whose advertising is fraudulent.
    >
    > sherm--
    >

    Well when I think of validating the code on my website, as an end-user I
    think of er, validating the code on my webpage. I was not mislead by such
    as you describe and if W3C is a Validator and CSE is not, then I need CSE
    to do what more it can do for me than W3C.


    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
    ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
    Bear Bottoms, Aug 11, 2007
    #18
  19. "Bear Bottoms" <> writes:

    > Well when I think of validating the code on my website, as an end-user
    > I think of er, validating the code on my webpage.


    A validator does indeed validate the code on your web page. But the terms
    "valid," "validate," and "validator" all have domain-specific, specialized
    meanings when used in the context of SGML and XML authoring, like we're
    doing here. These meanings are not as broad or generic as the dictionary
    definitions.

    If you ask a musician and a banker to define the word "note," you'll get
    two very different definitions in response. Likewise if you ask a butcher
    and a prison warden to define "shank," or a diver and a politician to
    define "platform," or a mechanic and a disk jockey to define "tune."
    Domain-specific definitions for common words are not a unique concept; we
    use them every day.

    CSE is not a validator according to the correct, domain-specific use of
    the word. If you think it is, then you have in fact been misled - whether
    you're aware of it or not - by the author's incorrect use of the term.

    > then I need CSE to do what more it can do for me than W3C.


    The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is calling
    it a validator, when it's not.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 11, 2007
    #19
  20. Yrrah

    Bear Bottoms Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:00:05 -0500, Sherm Pendley <>
    wrote:

    > "Bear Bottoms" <> writes:
    >
    >> Well when I think of validating the code on my website, as an end-user
    >> I think of er, validating the code on my webpage.

    >
    > A validator does indeed validate the code on your web page. But the terms
    > "valid," "validate," and "validator" all have domain-specific,
    > specialized
    > meanings when used in the context of SGML and XML authoring, like we're
    > doing here. These meanings are not as broad or generic as the dictionary
    > definitions.
    >
    > If you ask a musician and a banker to define the word "note," you'll get
    > two very different definitions in response. Likewise if you ask a butcher
    > and a prison warden to define "shank," or a diver and a politician to
    > define "platform," or a mechanic and a disk jockey to define "tune."
    > Domain-specific definitions for common words are not a unique concept; we
    > use them every day.
    >
    > CSE is not a validator according to the correct, domain-specific use of
    > the word. If you think it is, then you have in fact been misled - whether
    > you're aware of it or not - by the author's incorrect use of the term.
    >
    >> then I need CSE to do what more it can do for me than W3C.

    >
    > The point isn't whether CSE is useful, the point is that Albert is
    > calling
    > it a validator, when it's not.
    >
    > sherm--
    >

    Sorry, but I think that certainly is a snotty nosed reason to trash
    software authors. If his program validates the code on my website, then
    his software is a validator in my book. Grey Poupon anyone?


    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
    ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
    Bear Bottoms, Aug 11, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    452
    Danana
    Dec 14, 2005
  2. Paul Blay
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    473
    Toby A Inkster
    Dec 9, 2003
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    886
    Richter~9.6
    Feb 13, 2007
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    332
  5. micky
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    790
    dorayme
    Jul 13, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page