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

Re: New Branch Release (Was: validator/httpd/cgi-bin check,1.432.2.5,1.432.2.6)

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 07:20:00 +0900
Message-Id: <69920e5d418160aed9422ec542c3587c@w3.org>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>


On Feb 3, 2006, at 18:53, Terje Bless wrote:
> Given our current statement on the XML output, there's an implied 
> promise of
> stability on the SOAP API. Let's not rush that one out the door.

That's a fair point. Could you suggest what you would consider getting 
it out of the door without "rushing"? The arguments so far against 
putting the feature in 0.7.2 are all fair and interesting, but haven't 
really gone past the "I'm not sure it's a good idea" stage.

Based on Bjoern's message:
> 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 think we could
* update [1] as well as the validator news block [2], with a link to 
e.g [3] (the latter with a big warning about experimentalness)
* make some noise about it on e.g [4]
* give developers a deadline for comments. LCWD style.

[1] http://validator.w3.org/docs/users.html#Output
[2]http://validator.w3.org/#recent
[3] http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/docs/api
[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/

Would that work for you? I am not convinced it is necessary, but if it 
can alleviate your fears, I'm happy to accommodate.

> I also have some reservations about the implementation, but I haven't 
> looked at it all that carefully yet.

If joe luser sent a message to www-validator stating "soandso support 
is probably broken, but I'm not telling you why exactly, because I 
haven't looked at it carefully", they would be dismissed at not 
serious, don't you think? :) The feature has been on qa-dev for more 
than three months now: if you have a hunch that it may be wrong, please 
give it an actual look and help fix it, or find a good reason for 
trashing it.

Thanks,
-- 
olivier
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2006 22:20:09 GMT

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