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

Re: checklink credits

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:30:32 +0200
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1073604632.4575.63.camel@bobcat.mine.nu>

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:36, Terje Bless wrote:

> Which is why I'm inclined to ditch this behaviour alltogether, in
> favour of requiring Apache+mod_perl for the CGI version.

I would not mind an Apache+mod_perl prerequisite for the validator or
checklink, even though this particular "feature" is perhaps not that
severe so it would absolutely require such a change.  Checklink still
needs quite a bit of work to allow it to be clearly run under mod_perl
though.  It "works" now, but trashes the error logs with lots of
warnings.  And I have never implemented anything that would be run
either under mod_perl or from the command line... I don't see why it
wouldn't be doable though.

> A requirement for a recompiled (with insecure settings no less) Apache is not
> acceptable; except this is for an add-on feature and not basic functionality.

Agreed.  But documenting the workaround(s) for enabling this feature,
ie. either using the mod_rewrite tricks or enabling mod_perl would be ok
IMO.  I'll see what I can do...

> Since this is a common need for both the Validator and the Link Checker, and a
> well contained piece of code, this might be a perfect opportunity to begin the
> modularization and sharing code between the two. W3C::MarkUp::Util::AuthProxy?

Generally I'm all for modularization/reuse, but at the moment I think we
should really focus on getting the current beta validator and the
checklink from that branch in production before starting to tear either
of them apart in any way.
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 18:30:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:43 GMT