- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:24:06 +0100
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
* Terje Bless wrote: >>I think we should rather check the URL of the target document against the >>check URL. > >Too many pitfalls to implement reliably, alas. That's what I started out with, >but ended up rejecting it for this method. Maybe you can elaborate on this? Is this an implementation issue or do you think about some edge cases like two validator implementations that validate each other? >Well, there's a distinction between what we ship as a default and what we >configure our installation on v.w3.org to do. The default as shipped should be >zero because we want to err on the side of caution, but v.w3.org should be >able to check itself and qa-dev should probably allow infinite recursion. Well, one of the very first things you'd do to check your installation would be to click on the Valid Foo badge on the homepage (or on the results page for your first validation result). Allowing limited recursion is about as dangerous as allowing untrusted parties to use it in the first place. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2005 22:24:37 UTC