Kat wrote:
For a good while now I have been using A Real Validator to validate my
html offline.
That's good.
1. What are your opinions of SGML-parsers vs linters? Do both have their
place? Do they have different roles?
SGML parsers will tell you exactly what's wrong with your document
according to the formal definition in the SGML declaration and the
document's DTD and is the best choice for HTML documents. SGML based
validators for XML documents may have limitations (including any based
on OpenSP, such as the W3C/WDG validators and A Real Validator). Most,
if not all, of these limitations relate to well-formedness errors which
will be picked up by a browser when you use an XML MIME type anyway.
In general, lints are mostly quite useless for validation and they often
lie. Though some, like HTML tidy (which is one of the most useless
tools for validation, IMHO), is still reasonably good at cleaning up
really messy documents so that they can at least be worked with.
2. Is Validome an SGML parser or linter?
It's a lint.
3. How accurate do you believe is Validome's statement of errors?
http://www.validome.org/lang/en/errors/ALL
XML Declaration:
All the errors not caught by the W3C validator are limitations with
its XML support, but all of which are well formedness errors that will
be caught by any decent browser when you use the correct MIME type.
Error in the Document Type Declaration:
All of the following are not caught by true SGML based validators, but
that's because none of them are actually errors. Any validator that
chooses to raise these issues should call them warnings, not errors.
* System-ID missing (at PUBLIC) in HTML-Document
* Missing White Space between Public-ID and System-ID
* Upper and lower case at HTML-Documents
* Document Type Declaration in commentary area
* Unallowed overwriting of parameter entities
* HTML-Document with user-defined DTD
* HTML-Document with unknown Public-ID and user-defined DTD
I don't have time to go through the rest right now, I may do so later.
4. What is the most successful way in ensuring correct and valid html
and or xhtml (considering different validators have different errors)?
For HTML:
Use a real SGML based validator. In general, I prefer the W3C
validator, but the WDG validator's additional warnings that are not
emitted by the W3C validator can be useful for making documents more
compatible with real browsers. e.g. it will give warnings about
SHORTTAG NET usage (often just a result of XML syntax in an HTML document).
For XHTML:
Make sure you develop and test the page using the correct MIME type.
That will catch any well-formedness errors immediately (including
those not caught by the SGML validators). Generally speaking, a
validator that uses a real XML parser would be best, though the W3C/WDG
validators are still very good, especially if you've already ensured
against well-formedness that they won't catch. The W3C/WDG validators
will also give some useful warnings that a real XML parser won't, such
as reference to a non-SGML character. That's very useful for
detecting common mistakes like #146; instead of #x2019;.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
