- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:03:20 +0100
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
* olivier Thereaux wrote: > Most people, developers included, won't ever notice the feature >until it's prominently featured on validator.w3.org (and a buch of >blogs)... But we won't put any new feature there until we get a lot >of reviews... This is a bit of a chicken and egg problem, don't you >think? Why don't we inform developers of new toys they could play with on validator.w3.org unless they are part of a new Validator release? I agree that if that's the only way to draw attention to features, we do have a problem with testing new features. >While I would be sensitive to arguments such as "the soap interface >is broken because soandso", I have trouble agreeing with this >viewpoint. We have a situation where the "common practice" is screen >scraping, and we can't really tell people to us something else >because the alternative the unstable, experimental, proprietary XML, >which however has been tagged "here be dragons" for so long the paint >has worn down and no-one gives a damn any more. Do we have information about how people use the Validator this way, how many people use the XML output vs screen scraping, why they do that, which tools build upon either technique, etc? If I remember correctly, the proposal was to drop the XML output in favour of the SOAP output, so this would be good to know regardless of whether we backport and include the SOAP output in the next release. soap_fault.tmpl seems b0rked, btw. A bit too much copy and paste, it seems. -- 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 Friday, 3 February 2006 09:02:28 UTC