W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > April 2004

Re: [checklink] release - wrapping up

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:17:10 +0300
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1080987430.11565.703.camel@bobcat.mine.nu>

On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 09:14, olivier Thereaux wrote:

> I have announced the release to the www-validator as well as the  
> education list of W3C/QA, and posted announcements on the QA homepage  
> and the Open Source software page. Another announcement has also been  
> posted on the W3C homepage, which is excellent news.

Yep, nice!

> The only minor issue was with checklink.html (etc.). There is already a  
> redirect from the old checklink page at  
> http://www.w3.org/2000/07/checklink to  
> http://validator.w3.org/docs/checklink, and even though I could have  
> redirected them both to  
> dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/perl/modules/W3C/LinkChecker/docs/ 
> checklink.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 apparently  
> apache does not like these characters in a redirect and I preferred,  
> for the moment, to update directly the files in /docs/. The issue there  
> was that there are checklink.html and checklink.css... Bad idea,  
> triggers content negotiation on non equivalent resources. I renamed the  
> CSS and all went well.

I was thinking about this a bit as well.  There might be a better
location than the cvsweb one to redirect to, for example

Anyway, I will change the documentation link to point to
http://www.w3.org/2000/07/checklink again now that it points to an up to
date version of the doc.

Regarding renaming the CSS, do you think it should be done in the
distribution too, and what should it be renamed to?  Something that does
not conflict with the validator's files, obviously.

> One thing I wondered when installing was whether checklink's config  
> needed to be tweaked through a .conf or not. Tell me if that needs to  
> be done.

For the general purpose public version, no .conf is needed.  On the
other hand, if there are some W3C users who wish to have the basic
authentication forwarded to all of w3.org instead of the host of the
first document to be checked only, that would need a version which sets
the "Trusted" regexp in checklink.conf, and probably a W3C-only instance
of the checker.  I will clarify the docs on this, BTW.

> Now I think we can wait for feedback, and start thinking/working on  
> ripping it apart (ha!).
> I'm personnally very interested by a modular approach, since an API  
> would make it easy to make a checklink plugin for the Log Validator.

My current plan is to make one more release without any drastic
structural changes, incorporating various smaller bits I have on my TODO
list.  And then, start modularizing and adding "new cool stuff".

I have not thought about the public API yet at all, but done some work
on internal handlers and plug-ins.  Do you have ideas what kind of link
checker API you would like for the log validator?  SAX-like event-based,
something else?
Received on Saturday, 3 April 2004 05:17:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:24 UTC