W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > August 2006

Re: [ucn] more notes on installing the unicorn tool on qa-dev

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:23:57 +0900
Message-Id: <118C3130-0FF1-4C95-825D-3D55B1AFA309@w3.org>
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>

Hello Damien, all,

On Aug 3, 2006, at 17:17 , Damien LEROY wrote:
> As I know the css-validator isn't already patched. But the validator
> to patch will be "http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/" or
> "http://qa-dev.w3.org:8080/css-validator/validator.html.en" ?

Actually the one which will get the patches first will be:
http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/css-validator/

I'll remove the instance on tomcat on port 8080, it shouldn't be there.

We should think of putting some of the recent patches into production  
on jigsaw.w3.org soon.


> Yes, to debug localy our framework we add only few mime type to each
> observer and forgot to add other after.

I see. Please update with the list I gave, when you have a chance.

>> So for the CSS validator it should be:
>>         <ucn:mimetype>text/css</ucn:mimetype>
>>         <ucn:mimetype>text/html</ucn:mimetype>
>>         <ucn:mimetype>application/xhtml+xml</ucn:mimetype>
>>         <ucn:mimetype>image/svg+xml</ucn:mimetype>
>
> There are a specificity in mime type handle of CSS validator. They
> handle all mime type in uri input method but only "text/css" in direct
> and upload input method. So in UniCORN we add auto redirection from
> one input who not handle a mime type to other input which handle if
> it's possible.

Yes, the list above was for the URI method. And the redirection  
system is a very good idea. Do we have a documentation of it  
somewhere? It doesn't have to be as detailed as the contract/output  
specifications, since these will be used a lot, but some record of it  
would be good.

> We define mime type support in task to set priority which each mime
> type is handle by a observer. This can't be make in the observer file
> because a same observer can handle mime type with differents priority
> according to the task called.
> For example in a task like "CSS check" the observer "CSS Validator"
> handle the "text/html" mime type with "HIGH" priority but in a task
> like "Make all check" it handle with a minor priority to let the
> observer "Markup Validator" check the document before.

Good points, I remember now why it makes sense to have the mime types  
defined for each task, it's for the priorities handling. Thanks you  
(and thanks Jean-Gui too) for that explanation. I'm still wondering  
if there can't be a way to not "duplicate" the information (or at  
least, duplicate the work whenever updating that info) but that's not  
a big deal.

Thanks.
-- 
olivier
Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 02:23:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:46 GMT