W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Packaging CSS Validator and Command line

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:20:36 +0900
Message-Id: <A7F02D46-2308-44E7-8351-6DFD42EC0FBD@w3.org>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>

Hi David,

On Jan 12, 2007, at 00:48 , David Dorward wrote:
> Certainly it made it relatively easy to import the entire CVS tree
> with that fun Parser class in it and then remove the stuff that
> wouldn't compile without edits / bits from other sources.

You made me want to try it again, and indeed importing seems to go  
pretty well. Still rather confused by the interface, not sure I like  
the editor, but it could be a good way to work with the rather  
complex nature of the css validator and its large number of files/ 

> Thanks, I was planning to ask for some CVS access once I'd got the
> groundwork laid. I want to get things a bit cleaner and better
> structured before I go making code public.

Whenever you are ready (and, perhaps, before that), send me an ssh  
public key (preferably through some reasonably safe channel) and I  
will kick in the process to make you an account.

> I'm also wondering about the best way to handle distribution. So, some
> questions which I'll be looking for answers to at some point (if
> anyone here can answer them - super):

Not considering myself expert enough to have authoritative answers,  
but I can give my thoughts.

> Would bundling it up in the main .jar work?
> Could a wrapper detect if the command line or GUI version should run?

I guess what we're doing currently is rather similar. The jar is  
created for a servlet usage, but by calling a specific class
java -classpath $CLASSPATH:css-validator.jar  
one gets the commandline interface.

Or we could make different builds for different uses: one for the  
servlet, one for the GUI. I am assuming this is feasible.

> What happens if the user doesn't have SWT?
> Should we distribute SWT? If so, then how to go about it, it has OS
> specific bindings.
> Eclipse distributes SWT, and has OS specific packages (and the Windows
> version, at least, has a native system executable to run Eclipse
> itself).

No idea about technical side, I'll let others more knowledgeable  
chime in.

The common practice seems to be "distribute os-specific packages",  
but that can be a lot of work. in legal terms, I think it's OK to  
distribute SWT, provided we make it clear that SWT is distributed  
under eclipse public license, and the rest under W3C software  
license. I don't think the two are compatible enough to let us  
distribute SWT under w3c license.

Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 02:20:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:26 UTC