methode wrote: If I'm not

webwiz — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:29:38 +0000

methode wrote:

If I'm not mistaken the W3 validators are (partially) based on Tidy

The validators check against the DTD you give in your DOCTYPE - Tidy will suggest a DOCTYPE if you don't have one. Two very different tools for different purposes.

decibel.places wrote:

About 7 years ago I had an editor with Tidy that would mangle any file I gave it.

Perhaps the settings were wrong. Tidy has a whole slew of options, such as getting rid of Word's HTML cruft, converting to XML, formatting the output any which way, and so on.

I imagine it's the sheer range of options that puts people off using it, as it take a while to get all the options to suit your needs.

About 7 years ago I had an

decibel.places — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:21:44 +0000

About 7 years ago I had an editor with Tidy that would mangle any file I gave it.

Guess the current version is better.

But I just try to write good code, sometimes I check in the FFox cconsole for errors.

The editor I use actually

mscreashuns — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:19:18 +0000

The editor I use actually has HTML Tidy built in, so every now and then I'll run it just to see what happens, but for the most part I have decent code, so it's not necessary.

It's a helpful tool to have built in to my editor though for more complex pages, just to be sure I have all my closing tags and everything.

I've heard of it but never

Megan — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:59:12 +0000

I've heard of it but never really felt the need to use it, basically because I feel my code is good enough as it is. I guess I should give it a try and see what kind of changes it makes...

If I'm not mistaken the W3

methode — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:57:18 +0000

If I'm not mistaken the W3 validators are (partially) based on Tidy, so I guess most of us uses it even if we don't know. The only difference is that in the validators' case it throws a warning, doesn't try to fix anything.