W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > August 2005

Re: check with SGML::Parser::OpenSP (and branches)

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:50:13 +0300
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1124347813.3823.50.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 08:17 +0200, Terje Bless wrote:
> olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:
> >How about adding a paragraph to the installation document, saying: [[…]]
> We should avoid refering users to the source when at all possible.

But it could get hairly to fully document this, see my other mail on the

> >>I'm not sure if the top-level "TemplateOptions" section is the best
> >>choice in the config file; if someone has better ideas for the name or
> >>the "level", shoot.
> >
> >We are in validator.conf, in a context of configuration options. So I
> >suggest simply <Templates>...</Templates>
> Do we want to support the general feature of letting users specify options to
> HTML::Template? If not, I suggest we do this without a <Templates/> section.

I don't think there's much value in being able to pass arbitrary
parameters there per se, but the caching mode needs to be configurable.
If not for any other reason, but for file_cache_dir.  (Which is only
relevant for file based caching, and file based caching is not really
relevant if we require mod_perl later...)

On the other hand, we could add a "Cache" option inside the <Paths>
section which would in 0.7.1 imply file based caching using that dir,
and nothing in 0.8 (again, assuming mod_perl) unless we figure out
there's something else we want to cache.

> >Does anyone know whether we're going to need apache2 +
> >mod_perl2 or if 0.8 will run on 1.3+mod_perl?
> Given the level of difference between the two — and the API changed
> significantly as late as 2.0RC5 — I don't think we want to expend effort on
> trying to support mod_perl 1.

The APIs (or httpd.conf options) are not really a problem, been there,
done that for one huge proprietary mod_perl app.  And the APIs become an
issue only if/when we actually use them.  IMO it's more an issue whether
anyone has a mod_perl 1 setup any more to test with.
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2005 06:50:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:25 UTC