Validator program

[Jim S]

In a recent crash I lost an application called ??validator (? means I
don't remember).
It was a three column screen where you cam enter the site and validate a
single page or a whole site on W3C. The results appear in green in the
middle column and any errors in red.
Cannot find it with a Google - any ideas?
NB It is not an online validator as they won't do more than ~100 pages

 

[Jim S]

Jim

Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember
right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator
program.

Jack

I downloaded the free version of that and it does not appear the same -
unless I had an older version.
The one I had, had a input box at the top left and radio buttons below to
opt for single page or whole site.
Below that was another box that I never used and mention of a 'spider'. At
the bottom left was the start button.
The centre panel was empty until the green and red page references began to
appear. The numbers of 'failed' site appeared in orange at the bottom of
this centre panel.
When a page failed the validation the reason for ot appeared in the right
hand panel HTML at the top and CSS below.
Does any of this sound familiar?
BTW The actual markup did not appear and corrections had to be made
elsewhere and rechecked.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Could it be CSE HTML Validator. Cost around $50-$60 if I remember
right. I use it and wouldn't trade it for any other Validator
program.

Jack

Previously the author of that fake validator used to advertize it in Usenet
groups, without hardly ever giving any other contribution. People used to
explain (to novices - the author did not care, since he has decided to sell
his product dishonestly) that it is not a validator at all and gives plain
wrong error messages, in addition to misleading and irrelevant warnings
(with some real error messages scattered around just to confuse us).

Maybe he now decided to use a fake name and fake address as well - that
would be in accordance with the fakeness of the product.

 

[Tim Streater]

Previously the author of that fake validator used to advertize ...

advertise (I'm a validator program).

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

advertise (I'm a validator program).

Not sure your point.

adverti*s*e US spelling vs adverti*z*e UK?

Or that the program, regardless it's useful or not, is a *linter* not a
*validator* therefor it not accurately named.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant.

A lot of us feel the same way - but in this case the rant is accurate
and well-deserved.

The CSE program is the only one I've ever used.

It's not a validator. The author claims that it is one, and that gets
a lot of people's undies in a knot. That's not to say that it isn't a
useful tool - it is. It's the deliberately misleading name that's the
problem here.

My website has well over 1000 pages with over 2000 images. Believe
me, if I was using a bad Validator, I would know it.

You might want to rethink that statement. CSE is a useful program -
but it's not a validator at all, much less a good or bad one, and it's
obvious from your comment that you did *not* know that.

sherm--

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Sorry Jukka, I don't know what to say about your rant.
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Oh I think we know it well.

The CSE program is the only one I've ever used.

Yet you claim to know that it is the best.

Sounds familiar. Isn't Albert your real name?

Yucca

 

[Sherm Pendley]

Sorry, I really don't know what to say to you guys here.

How about "gee, I didn't know that, thanks for the tip"?

Seriously, I don't see any reason for you to get defensive and cop an
attitude about his. You're the victim here - you were sold something
that calls itself a validator, and you believed the label. The fault
belongs to the guy who mislabeled it - no one is criticizing you for
that. Well, Jukka is... but he criticizes *everybody*, so don't take
that personally.

Besides, I was only trying to help a guy that was trying to replace
his program.

Good for you! Seriously - I mean that. Not enough people care enough
to help others these days.

Having said that, your motivation says nothing one way or another
about whether CSE is a validator. The fact that you've been using it
with all the best intentions won't magically make CSE into something
that it's not.

I know what I have

Apparently not, if you think CSE is a validator.

What IS a validation program, and give me some names.

Validation is verifying an SGML or XML document type against a
DTD. CSE doesn't use a DTD; it uses a different process, that is more
accurately called a lint checker.

The W3C has an online validator:
<http://validator.w3.org/>

There's an HTML Validator extension for FireFox, that uses the same
underlying code as the W3C's:
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/249>

The Web Design Group's validator is based on nsgmls parser, and is
available both online and for local checking:

Put up or shut up.

What's with the hostility? Are you always this rude with people who
try to help you learn something new?

sherm--

 

[Sherm Pendley]

I see some opinions tho. CSE does the validating I need and it stays
update and current. It is my Validator.

The correct definition of a word is not a matter of opinion. What CSE
does is not validating. That doesn't mean it's not useful - a lint
checker can and usually is useful.

Only after the 3rd or fourth time they rant at me

I'm not ranting about anything, I'm simply pointing out the facts: A
validator, in the correct definition of the word as it's used with
respect to SGML and XML, performs the specific function of parsing a
DTD and using that to assess the validity of a document.

CSE does not perform that function, hence it is not a validator. It
would be better described as a "lint checker" - a useful tool, to be
sure, but not what CSE's author claims it is.

Think of it this way - gasoline and diesel perform roughly similar
functions. And yet, you'd be rather angry at the station owner if the
pump that said "gasoline" in fact was pumping diesel, wouldn't you? If
you saw someone pulling up to the same pump, getting ready to fill
their tank, wouldn't you stop and warn them that they won't get what
the labels says they'll get?

I explained above. I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was just trying
to help some one and I get all these opinions, not help for the guy
with the question.

The guy with the question asked for a validator. How is it not helpful
to speak up when someone mistakenly suggests an app that is not, in
fact, what the guy wanted?

sherm--

 

[C A Upsdell]

> What IS a validation program, and give me some names.

Put up or shut up.

You may find this useful:

http://www.arealvalidator.com/real-validation.html

 

[C A Upsdell]

Validation is verifying an SGML or XML document type against a
DTD. CSE doesn't use a DTD; it uses a different process, that is more
accurately called a lint checker.

The W3C has an online validator:
<http://validator.w3.org/>

There's an HTML Validator extension for FireFox, that uses the same
underlying code as the W3C's:
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/249>

The Web Design Group's validator is based on nsgmls parser, and is
available both online and for local checking:
<http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/>

Another is aRealValidator.com

 

[Jim S]

You may find this useful:

http://www.arealvalidator.com/real-validation.html

Thanks to all who are searching on my behalf or even their own <g>
No-one has found the one I lost which seems strange as I used it a lot.
To the pedants who chipped their two pennorth in; of course what I seek is
not in itself a validator as it uses WDG or W3C and then reports back with
any errors, but it called itself a validator and did what I wanted so
that's good enough for me.

 

[dorayme]

Not sure your point.

The poster is making a joke, he thinks he has caught JK in a spelling
error and is capitalizing on the subject of the thread, validators. He
is pretending to be a sort of validator that checks spelling.

adverti*s*e US spelling vs adverti*z*e UK?

Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

advertise

  € verb 1 present or describe (a product, service, or event) in a
public medium so as to promote sales. 2 seek to fill (a vacancy) by
placing a notice in a newspaper or other medium. 3 make (a quality or
fact) known.
  ‹ DERIVATIVES advertiser noun advertising noun.
  ‹ ORIGIN Old French advertir, from Latin advertere Œturn to¹.

But, by contrast, my zed in "capitalize" (I am rather fond of zed where
there is a choice. "s" is such a sneak, so common! Whereas a zed (a zee
to you perhaps) is the proudest* of the 26 letters:

capitalize
(also capitalise)
  € verb 1 (capitalize on) take the chance to gain advantage from. 2
provide with financial capital. 3 convert into financial capital. 4
write or print (a word or letter) in capital letters or with an initial
capital.
  ‹ DERIVATIVES capitalization noun.

* Can't get your mind around the idea of letters being common or proud
or sad? Ask and I will try to help.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

I've been over this many times

Yes you have. Give it a rest, please.

That's one definition of "HTML Validator".

That's the correct one in this context.

There are other deifnitions as well.

Which may be correct in other contexts, but not in this one. Such is
often the case with technical terms.

The people who rant about CSE HTML Validator simply don't like the name
because they choose to base it only on one definition of "HTML
Validator".

I don't like the name because it's a deliberate lie, designed to fool
people who are looking for a genuine validator into buying your
product instead.

Look up HTML Validator on the web and there are other definitions and
meanings in addition to the one above.

Whatever - one can also find "evidence" on the web that the moon
landings were faked. The fact that many people have been fooled into
believing your lie doesn't make it true.

This is more mis-information. CSE HTML Validator Std/Pro includes a DTD
based validator which can be used if desired. It's been included for quite a
while now.

Too little, too late. You're a liar and a fraud, only telling the
truth because you've been badgered into it.

sherm--

 

[Neredbojias]

Probably referring to me, the developer of CSE HTML Validator.

I recommend that you don't listen to the CSE HTML Validator "trash
talkers" on this newsgroup. They don't like the product simply because
of the name and even ignore the fact that it has included a DTD based
validator for quite awhile now so their basis of complaint has been
non-existent for quite awhile now.

Albert Wiersch

Forgetting the dtd-based part for now, how does the other (-normal/original)
part perform it's validation or checking for markup correctness? I mean what
basis or reference or data does it use?

 

[dorayme]

Lets agree to disagree.

Sorry, but I cannot agree to disagree. If you say you like Vanilla
better than Chocolate we can agree to disagree. If you say that a
Cow is a Pig, we cannot agree to disagree, because one of us is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Which, of course, is nonsense. If it were not nonsense then people could
only agree with each other to disagree where there was no truth of the
matter. And in cases where there is no truth involved, there is no real
disagreement in the first place and so there could not be a successful
agreement to disagree*. In other words, one can only truly and
successfully agree to disagree where there is a truth involved and only
one of the partners of the agreement could at most be right.

*Agreeing to disagree is to be distinguished from agreeing not to hurl
rotten tomatoes at each other. Agreeing to disagree is simply to agree
to not try further to convince the other of one's belief. Under a looser
idea than the one I propose above, this is also applicable to where
there is no truth involved, where one person tries to convince the other
to like what he likes.

 

[C A Upsdell]

C. A.
And thanks again C A for giving me what I needed with out a lecture.

May I make a suggestion, however: not a lecture?

When I first started validating pages, eons ago, I found that there was
an unexpected benefit: by examining my errors, I developed a better
understanding of HTML and CSS, which I think made me a better designer.
Perhaps you might also.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

At no time did I ever claim that CSE HTML Validator's own validation
engine was a DTD based validator.

You have done that for years, calling your product a validator. The word
"validator" has a well-defined meaning in the context of HTML.

- - I never said that CSE
HTML Validator's own engine was a DTD based validator.

You're _so_ ridiculous. Maybe you never used those words in your lies.

It's like selling snake oil as medicine to all diseases for years and later
saying "I never said it would cure any disease" or "I never called it
panacea" or "I never claimed it to be a panacea in the formal sense".

 

[Blinky the Shark]

May I make a suggestion, however: not a lecture?

When I first started validating pages, eons ago, I found that there was
an unexpected benefit: by examining my errors, I developed a better
understanding of HTML and CSS, which I think made me a better designer.
Perhaps you might also.

Well, there you go. *Now* you're on his shit list.

I'm waiting for him to demand a refund.

 

[Neredbojias]

A combinations of web standards and what works in the real world (with
browsers that people actually use).

The "what works in the real world" might be most of the fly in the ointment.
If ie6 renders some non-standard thing "correctly" from its perspective, is
this "valid" (-for ie6, that is)? What supposedly works in the real world
may (or may not) be pragmatically correct, but that does not make it
intrinsically correct and a validator must be unbiased. The only way markup
can be valid is if the organization in authority over it says its valid,
Microsoft notwithstanding.