Brett Patterson wrote:
So, Gunlaug, in essence, (essence being the operative word), you do validate your site by using tidy? Correct? I mean if you trust tidy to correct your code and all the code that tidy puts out is, as you say, 99.9% effective then that is kinda like validating, right?
Pretty much so, although tidying is an active process while validating is pretty passive. <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_07.html> If "my" Tidy gives up on my markup, then it's time to ask the validator. In such cases I go back and forth between validating, tidying and cross-browser checking until the problem is tidy, valid and solved. May I add that I don't really trust any software - my own creations included. So, when I'm really bored I attack 'em with all I've got and then some. "My" Tidy has survived all my attacks quite well. Always some weak spots that may be overcome by cross-checking and making notes on what to look out for. "My" Tidy disagrees with the validator on a few points - like MSIE down-level conditional comments, and I haven't bothered fixing "my" Tidy on these points since the ones I've encountered are so few and easy to remember. Otherwise I think Dave Raggett got it more or less right in the original... <http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/> ...but, as I say in my article, I'm not impressed by what others have done to Tidy later. Some releases/attachments are ok, while others are crippled by someone's personal preferences. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
