On 18/02/2015 23:07 , Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
I recommend using the validator.nu service rather than the W3C one.
They're basically the same but the validator.nu one is closer to the
WHATWG spec's requirements than the W3C one.
The relationship between the two is somewhat obscure, but it is in that
direction. What the different validators check against is really their
authors’ idea of what is correct HTML, so we have yet another
“standard”, defined very implicitly, and mutable. But it indeed appears
to be closer to WHATWG HTML than to W3C HTML5.
The bottom line is that validators are just useful tools, at best. All
HTML5 validators are experimental software that checks against some
rules that have not been disclosed in detail but are supposed to match
some idea of “HTML5”.
Actually, both http://validator.nu and http://validator.w3.org/nu are
the same code base with settings adjusted to account for the variance
between specs. The relationship isn't "obscure", the code attempts to
implement what's in the spec so barring bugs they're not about "the
authors' idea of what is correct HTML", and given that the source is
open it's hardly a set of "rules that have not been disclosed in detail".
https://github.com/validator/validator
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
