Validator program

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim S, Aug 22, 2008.

  1. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    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
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Aug 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:29:48 -0500, jACK wrote:

    > 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
    >
    >
    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:31:26 GMT, Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >>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


    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.

    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Aug 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jACK wrote:

    > 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.
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 24, 2008
    #3
  4. Jim S

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <Z5csk.54996$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > jACK wrote:
    >
    > > 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 ...


    advertise (I'm a validator program).
     
    Tim Streater, Aug 24, 2008
    #4
  5. Tim Streater wrote:
    > In article <Z5csk.54996$>,
    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    >> jACK wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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 ...

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Aug 24, 2008
    #5
  6. jACK <> writes:

    > 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--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 24, 2008
    #6
  7. jACK wrote:

    > 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
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 24, 2008
    #7
  8. jACK <> writes:

    > 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:
    <http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/>

    > 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--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 24, 2008
    #8
  9. jACK <> writes:

    > 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--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 24, 2008
    #9
  10. Jim S

    C A Upsdell Guest

    C A Upsdell, Aug 24, 2008
    #10
  11. Jim S

    C A Upsdell Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >> 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:
    > <http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/>
    >


    Another is aRealValidator.com
     
    C A Upsdell, Aug 24, 2008
    #11
  12. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:11:07 -0400, C A Upsdell wrote:

    > jACK wrote:
    > > 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


    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.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Aug 24, 2008
    #12
  13. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <48673$48b176aa$40cba7cd$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Tim Streater wrote:
    > > In article <Z5csk.54996$>,
    > > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> jACK wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> 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 ...

    > >
    > > advertise (I'm a validator program).

    >
    > 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.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 24, 2008
    #13
  14. "Albert Wiersch" <> writes:

    > "Sherm Pendley" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.

    >> 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.

    >
    > 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--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 25, 2008
    #14
  15. Jim S

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Aug 2008, "Albert Wiersch" <> wrote:

    >
    > "jACK" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> PS Talk about paranoid. Who's Albert?

    >
    > 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?

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Great Sights and Sounds
    http://adult.neredbojias.net/ (adult)
     
    Neredbojias, Aug 25, 2008
    #15
  16. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:

    > >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.


    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.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 25, 2008
    #16
  17. Jim S

    C A Upsdell Guest

    Re: Validator program - Final Summery

    jACK wrote:
    > 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.
     
    C A Upsdell, Aug 25, 2008
    #17
  18. Albert Wiersch wrote:

    > 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".
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 25, 2008
    #18
  19. Re: Validator program - Final Summery

    C A Upsdell wrote:

    > jACK wrote:
    >> 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.


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

    I'm waiting for him to demand a refund.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 25, 2008
    #19
  20. Jim S

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Aug 2008, "Albert Wiersch" <> wrote:

    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9B04C5E1EB784neredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78...
    >>
    >> 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?

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Great Sights and Sounds
    http://adult.neredbojias.net/ (adult)
     
    Neredbojias, Aug 25, 2008
    #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. pipi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    621
    Joseph Millar
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. Rey
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    10,960
    Roedy Green
    Dec 12, 2003
  3. ola
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    713
    Marco Schmidt
    Feb 16, 2004
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    905
    Richter~9.6
    Feb 13, 2007
  5. yaru22
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    686
    Nikita the Spider
    Nov 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page