W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > January 2008

Re: first questions on validator.nu

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:26:07 +0200
Cc: Tools dev list <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7D42E788-9230-4BDD-A5E6-AF5C914B1E91@iki.fi>
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>

Hi,

On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:39, olivier Thereaux wrote:

> On Dec 7, 2007, at 20:42 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I considered it very briefly and figured that by downloading from  
>> the original distribution sites I don't need to consider what legal  
>> or maintenance obligations I'd have if I distributed the third- 
>> party code myself. For example, I don't need to find out which  
>> packages would require me to find complete corresponding source  
>> code and distributing that, too.
>
> That's a good point, and as I mentioned, I find the installation  
> technique really fascinating. I am, however, trying to figure out  
> how I ended up with a 440MB dependencies directory, if as you say it  
> only downloads a fifth of that through the network. heavy unzipping?

Yes. Some of the archives contain sources or javadocs, which means  
that unzipping expands them a lot.

> Asking for a note about modification is OK for human-readable  
> documents, but what about machine-readable schemas, for instance?

It's already the W3C practice to allow modifications of schemas--with  
notices that that modified copies are in fact modified copies. I've  
mentioned modifications in both schema source and in documentation.

Requiring sources to carry a detailed change log is inconvenient, but  
a one-time notice that the file isn't the official upstream file works  
pretty well; there's freedom but no misrepresentation of upstream.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2008 12:26:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:48 GMT