Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 8, 2013.

  1. 2013-04-08 16:19, lipska the kat wrote:

    > I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
    > validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
    > attributes, the attributes concerned are
    >
    > data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout


    Such attributes are not allowed by any published DTD for HTML. Apart
    from the last one, they are all allowed in HTML5 CR, which allows almost
    any attribute that starts with "data-" to be used for site-specific
    scripting (and styling) purposes, see
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#embedding-custom-non-visible-data-with-the-data-*-attributes

    > How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an
    > href?


    I don't see how href relates to this; href is an attribute, not an element.

    Anyway, the way to "validate" a document with "data-" attributes (in any
    element) is to use http://validator.w3.org or http://validator.nu in
    HTML5 mode. You trigger that mode by using

    <!doctype html>

    at the very start, instead of any other doctype string, or,
    alternatively, by selecting HTML5 from the dropdown in the validators'
    user interface.

    Caveats:
    1. HTML5 is work in progress.
    2. There is no published document that specifies which variant of HTML5
    is actually used by the validators in HTML5 mode. It seems that it's
    whatever its authors regard as "current".
    3. The validators have (other) bugs, too.
    4. Validation is just checking and as such does not improved your page
    the least. What matters is that you might find some errors that you can
    then fix. So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
    warnings, not to get a "clean report"!

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 8, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 2013-04-08 20:38, lipska the kat wrote:

    >> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal

    >
    > You're kidding right?
    >
    > Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.


    I wonder if you are kidding. I really don't know.

    > Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
    > valid. It's meaninless otherwise.


    What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
    perfect? I hope you are not that misguided. The point is exactly to find
    errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 8, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2013-04-08, Jim T wrote:
    > On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:38:22 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
    > neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
    >
    >>On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
    >>> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    >>
    >>[snip]
    >>
    >>>>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
    >>>>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
    >>>>
    >>>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
    >>>
    >>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal

    >>
    >>You're kidding right?

    >
    > Nope. The goal is to get your site to look and work as you intend on
    > as many browsers as possible, past, present, and future. It's not
    > always possible to achieve that goal with 100% validation.


    It's even less likely to be achieved without 100% validation.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson
    <http://torontowebdesign.cfaj.ca/>
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Apr 8, 2013
    #3
  4. 2013-04-08 22:04, lipska the kat wrote:

    >> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
    >> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.

    >
    > You must be from some parallel realty,


    It seems that our realities are indeed different.

    > in my reality, if I want to be
    > sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
    > get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept.


    It's simple indeed. Most false ideas are.

    > Not sure how
    > that makes me misguided.


    For example, your text can be complete nonsense, and even ungrammatical,
    just in a way that the spelling checker does not catch. With HTML
    validation, it should be even more obvious.

    >> The point is exactly to find
    >> errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.

    >
    > And what do you do when you have found and fixed your errors?
    > You run the validator again don't you.


    Probably, to see that I really fixed the issues. That is, in order to
    get error messages and warnings. Not in order to feel righteous or to
    get a worse-than-nonsense stamp "Valid HTML!" (which anyone and his
    brother can use for invalid markup too, and often does).

    > What do you do when there are no more errors...


    I stop using the validator for now. What is your problem with that idea?

    > honestly, I don't know
    > why I'm even having this conversation,


    This isn't a conversation, really, but to make a wild guess: because you
    have no idea of what validation really is and you feel uncomfortable
    with that. Well, that's good. But I'm not sure whether you are making
    progress.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 8, 2013
    #4
  5. Jukka K. Korpela

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
    > > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!

    >
    > Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.


    Maybe it is novel to you but it is quite sensible, the idea is
    validation can be a pyrrhic victory. If you get no warnings or errors,
    that eliminates a particular set of pitfalls. But there are many other
    sets of troubles for which the remedies have nothing to do with formal
    validation.

    Furthermore, if you do get some warnings, experience can tell you that
    eliminating all of them risks losing some desired functionality (in
    all or most browsers) unnecessarily (the price of mere validation not
    being worth it)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 9, 2013
    #5
  6. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 08/04/13 14:35, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:


    > > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
    > > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!

    >
    > Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.


    It's the only one that makes any sense. You get some messages, then you
    look and see whether they matter or not.

    In reading your posts, I'm reminded of someone I worked with some 40
    years ago. "Well", he said, "the assembler gave me no error messages or
    warnings so I guess it must be correct."

    He left quite soon after that.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 9, 2013
    #6
  7. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
    > > On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
    > > neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > >>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
    > >>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
    > >>
    > >> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.

    > >
    > > He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal

    >
    > You're kidding right?
    >
    > Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
    >
    > Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
    > valid. It's meaninless otherwise.


    Ah, now you're getting it. Just because it validates, doesn't mean it's
    valid.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 9, 2013
    #7
  8. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:


    > > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
    > > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.

    >
    > You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
    > sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
    > get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure how
    > that makes me misguided.


    It makes you simple-minded. So it passes the spell checker. Has that
    checked grammar? Or the meaning of what you wrote? Or whether there are
    homonyms - mmmm no, that's the wrong word, I want the word that refers
    to two words spelt differently, sounding the same, but with different
    meanings.

    Passing the spell-check does *not* guarantee freedom from errors.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 9, 2013
    #8
  9. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <kk2001$3de$>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > Tim Streater wrote:
    >
    > > Or whether there are homonyms - mmmm no, that's the wrong word, I want
    > > the word that refers to two words spelt differently, sounding the same,
    > > but with different meanings.

    >
    > Those are homophones. ;-)


    Lessee now, right-mouse on the word ("homophones" in this case), select
    "Look up in Dictionary", ...

    Well I'll be hornswoggled, so it is. Much obliged.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 9, 2013
    #9
  10. Jukka K. Korpela

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 09/04/13 20:34, Tim Streater wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > >
    > >> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
    > >> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
    > >>
    > >> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
    > >> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if
    > >> I get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure
    > >> how that makes me misguided.

    > >
    > > It makes you simple-minded.

    >
    > Personal attack noted.


    Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
    argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
    text is "free of errors".

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 10, 2013
    #10
  11. lipska the kat wrote:
    > The need to question things is a prerequisite of the inquiring mind,
    > it's good to question things, however, the time comes when you
    > inevitably come up against the law of diminishing returns, so, if you
    > use a spell checker to check your spelling and then spend time reading
    > through every word to check that the spell checker hasn't missed
    > something, either you have no confidence in your spell checker or you
    > feel that you 'know better' than your spell checker. In either case I

    ^^^^
    > would question your reasons for using that particular tool.


    My spell checker is good, but sometimes I 'no better'. ;)
    ^^

    --
    Christoph M. Becker
     
    Christoph Becker, Apr 10, 2013
    #11
  12. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 09/04/13 20:27, Tim Streater wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 08/04/13 14:35, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > >
    > >> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
    > >> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
    > >>
    > >> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.

    > >
    > > It's the only one that makes any sense. You get some messages, then you
    > > look and see whether they matter or not.
    > >
    > > In reading your posts, I'm reminded of someone I worked with some 40
    > > years ago. "Well", he said, "the assembler gave me no error messages or
    > > warnings so I guess it must be correct."
    > >
    > > He left quite soon after that.

    >
    > He was probably tired of your incessant self-righteousness I expect.


    Unlikely, since I wasn't involved in the issue that caused his
    departure, in any way at all.

    > I can't imagine you are any less smug in real life.
    >
    > Let's recap.
    >
    > I submit a page to the W3c validator, it passes, what should be my reaction.
    >
    > 1.) Wring my hands, gnash my teeth and put on my best hair shirt and
    > wail and sob and feel terrible that something isn't right in the house
    > of the browser gods because I only managed to realize one possible
    > interpretation of the word 'valid'
    >
    > 2.) Move on to something more important.


    Neither, and this confirms that you are missing the point. All you've
    done is confirm that you have no HTML errors, not that there are no
    errors on your page.

    What you should be doing is:

    3) Checking that your page has everything on it that you want and expect.

    Such as, f'rinstance, that your drop-down menus contain all the entries
    you expect, and that the expected actions occur when you choose each one.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 10, 2013
    #12
  13. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 09/04/13 20:34, Tim Streater wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > >
    > >> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
    > >> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
    > >>
    > >> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
    > >> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if
    > >> I get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure
    > >> how that makes me misguided.

    > >
    > > It makes you simple-minded.

    >
    > Personal attack noted.
    >
    > > So it passes the spell checker. Has that
    > > checked grammar?

    >
    > Did I ask it to?
    > Do I expect a spell checker to do semantic analysis or check the grammar
    > (and no, they are not the same thing).
    >
    > No, I didn't, I asked it to check the spelling and that's what it does.
    > Any other interpretation is entirely in your own confused mind.


    But you're *behaving* as if that is all that matters, and that is the
    point.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 10, 2013
    #13
  14. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > >>> It makes you simple-minded.
    > >>
    > >> Personal attack noted.

    > >
    > > Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
    > > argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
    > > text is "free of errors".

    >
    > A spell checker checks the spelling, again, it's a very simple concept
    > that you seem to be having trouble grasping.


    And that is *all* it checks.

    > The need to question things is a prerequisite of the inquiring mind,


    But you obviously haven't got one because:

    > I have confidence that the tool at validator.w3.org parses my HTML
    > correctly and reports no errors if there are indeed no errors.


    No *HTML* errors. That leaves out the errors related to whether the page
    then does what you want it to do.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 10, 2013
    #14
  15. Jukka K. Korpela

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > On 10/04/13 13:57, Tim Streater wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 09/04/13 20:27, Tim Streater wrote:
    > >> > In article <>,
    > >> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > > Neither, and this confirms that you are missing the point. All you've
    > > done is confirm that you have no HTML errors, not that there are no
    > > errors on your page.

    >
    > You are getting all mixed up between the (abstract) logical layer and
    > the presentation layer, see below
    >
    > > What you should be doing is:
    > >
    > > 3) Checking that your page has everything on it that you want and expect.
    > >
    > > Such as, f'rinstance, that your drop-down menus contain all the entries
    > > you expect, and that the expected actions occur when you choose each one.

    >
    > Yes, this is called testing isn't it. True enough, it may be argued that
    > the word *validation* encapsulates all manner of issues and I don't
    > disagree but we are talking about validating HTML code against the w3c
    > validator not deciding weather the application is 'correct' (which is a
    > whole other ballgame). Any other interpretation of the word validate in
    > this context is entirely in your own mind.
    >
    > My applications are always presentation layer agnostic. I will have
    > tested the application logic long before I decide to implement an HTML
    > interface. If I have a drop-down menu it will be populated on the fly
    > from a List<?> that has been generated by my code. If there is something
    > missing from the list it's because I have screwed up something in the
    > application layer logic. This is the modern way of doing things. By the
    > time I get to implementing an HTML interface the application has been
    > tested, in fact I write the test cases before I write the code, it's
    > called AGILE development, you may have heard of it.
    >
    > As for actions, these map quite neatly onto use cases, this obviously
    > involves a bit of testing but the interface is a means to and end only,
    > it's just another interface, not the driver of the application, it's
    > called decoupling, you may have heard of it.
    >
    > Validation of the HTML is an incidental exercise on my part because by
    > the time I get around to this bit of the application everything else
    > has already been tested several times.
    >
    > Well this really as been most enjoyable, I'd better go now, you know,
    > code to write, interfaces to validate :)


    Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after
    all.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 10, 2013
    #15
  16. Jukka K. Korpela

    Joy Beeson Guest

    On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:33:59 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
    neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

    > > Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.

    >
    > <sigh> If you say so
    >
    > lipska


    You have been giving a *very* good imitation of Rod Speed. You might
    want to hang out in one of the writers' newsgroups to pick up some
    tips on clarity of expression.

    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at comcast dot net
     
    Joy Beeson, Apr 11, 2013
    #16
    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. Neil Zanella
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,003
    Neil Zanella
    Oct 26, 2003
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s?=

    Pin declarations in EC/ECP FPGAs

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s?=, Feb 22, 2005, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,556
    cristian
    Mar 11, 2005
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    298
    Steven D'Aprano
    Feb 11, 2013
  4. Jonathan N. Little
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,232
    Christoph Becker
    Apr 13, 2013
  5. Terry Reedy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    118
    Terry Reedy
    Sep 23, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page