I encourage you to do a comparison, but this is what I found in my small
tests:
MarkupValidity does not complain about missing doctypes (I should
probably make it do that). MarkupValidity reports the same errors that
the w3c validator does, but (IMHO) MarkupValidity's error messages are
slightly better. Plus you don't need to hit the network when using
MarkupValidity.
Tidy actually corrects your document, and I think sometimes the errors
and warnings reported are unclear. For example, this document:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head></head>
<body>
<p><p>Hello</p></p>
</body>
</html>
Give you these errors from tidy:
line 1 column 1 - Warning: missing <!DOCTYPE> declaration
line 9 column 5 - Warning: inserting implicit <p>
line 2 column 3 - Warning: inserting missing 'title' element
line 5 column 5 - Warning: trimming empty <p>
line 9 column 5 - Warning: trimming empty <p>
5 warnings, 0 errors were found!
MarkupValidity says this:
Error on line: 2:
Element 'head': Missing child element(s). Expected is one of ( script, style, meta, link, object, isindex, title, base ).
1: <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
2: <head>
3: </head>
4: <body>
5: <p>
Error on line: 6:
Element 'p': This element is not expected. Expected is one of ( a, br, span, bdo, object, applet, img, map, iframe, tt ).
5: <p>
6: <p>
7: Hello
8: </p>
9: </p>
When I'm testing my documents, I don't want them corrected. *I* want to do the
corrections. If the document needs to be corrected, then something is wrong.
I'm not sure about speed. I suspect that MarkupValidity will be faster
since it is not doing any document corrections. But that doesn't really
matter to me. The error messages are what make my life easy.
···
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:04:00PM +0900, Rob Sanheim wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Aaron > Patterson<aaron@tenderlovemaking.com> wrote:
> markup_validity version 1.0.0 has been released!
>
> * <http://github.com/tenderlove/markup_validity>
>
> MarkupValidity provides test/unit and rspec helpers for checking the validity
> of your documents. Shortcuts for verifying xhtml-transitional and
> xhtml-strict documents are provided as well. MarkupValidity will not only
> tell you when your document is invalid, but it will tell you what it *should*
> be.
>
> Changes:
>
> ### 1.0.0 / 2009-06-11
>
> * 1 major enhancement
>
> * Birthday!
>
> ## FEATURES/PROBLEMS:
>
> * Make sure that markup_validity is required *after* test/unit, or mix
> MarkupValidity::Assertions in to your test class yourself.
> * Currently AWESOME!
>
> ## SYNOPSIS:
>
> ###
> # test/unit example
> require 'test/unit'
> require 'rubygems'
> require 'markup_validity'
>
> class ValidHTML < Test::Unit::TestCase
> def test_i_can_has_valid_xhtml
> assert_xhtml_transitional xhtml_document
> end
> end
>
> ###
> # rspec example
> require 'rubygems'
> require 'markup_validity'
>
> describe "my XHTML document" do
> it "can has transitional xhtml" do
> xhtml_document.should be_xhtml_transitional
> end
> end
>
> ###
> # Rails controller test example
> require 'test_helper'
> require 'markup_validity'
>
> class AwesomeControllerTest < ActionController::TestCase
> test "valid markup" do
> get :new
> assert_xhtml_transitional @response.body
> end
> end
>
> ###
> # Here is an example error report
>
> Error on line: 7:
> Element 'p': This element is not expected. Expected is one of ( a, br, span, bdo, object, applet, img, map, iframe, tt ).
>
> 6: <p>
> 7: <p>
> 8: Yo dawg, I heard you like p-tags
> 9: </p>
> 10: </p>
> .
> <false> is not true.
>
> ## REQUIREMENTS:
>
> * depends on nokogiri
>
> ## INSTALL:
>
> * gem install markup_validity
>
> * <http://github.com/tenderlove/markup_validity>
>
> --
> Aaron Patterson
> http://tenderlovemaking.com/
This is very cool, I'd like to integrate support for this into
Tarantula (http://github.com/relevance/tarantula/tree/master\). How
does this compare to tidy or the w3c validator?
--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/