W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > January 2009

Re: releasing current CSS validator code

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 07:50:16 -0500 (EST)
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
cc: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>, Jean-Guilhem Rouel <jean-gui@w3.org>, Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-qa-dev@w3.org list" <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901050746100.1773@ubzre.j3.bet>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, olivier Thereaux wrote:

> Hello everyone, happy new 2009!

HNY :)

> I was looking today at a number of things that have been ?ready? for a while, 
> and remembered that we were planning to work on releasing a new version of 
> the CSS validator.
>
> Context:
> * Yves has been doing a lot of work on the grammar
(and other bugfixes, but there are probably some others to fix, including 
more cleaning/updating of the CSS3 part)

> * 4 languages are available in dev (+farsi, but needs core work on rtl 
> text...)
> and the translations are all up to date, after a long, tedious effort:
>   http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/css-validator/translations.html
> * There is still a lot of commented-out stuff from the work of Julien (a long 
> time ago) dealing with multi-profile checking

I would like to do it in another way, so stay tuned on this.

> TODO:
> 1) run the test suite and fix any regression (or fix the test suite)
> ? I just added some reminder/instruction on the test suite on the wiki:
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/CssValidator#head-88c0f78ae929e83da730d6eb2485bec119ddc9d7
>
> After a quick run of the test suite and a peek at the results, one problem I 
> noticed is that the CSS3 code does not seem to like any test with "inherit": 
> http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/css-validator/autotest/results/propertiesCSS3.html

CSS3 is broken in multiple ways, perhaps not the same as before, but it's 
still far from being completely usable. (and according to the number of 
bug reports, not widely used anyway).

> 2) Create a .war file
>  and/or find a way to include all necessary libs in a zip
>  and/or fix the installation documentation
> in other words, we need to fix the installation process. Many people are 
> complaining, which is not a good sign.

the ant file should do it, no?

> 3) Document the work done, the work pending and in progress, and the TBD
> I think our bugzilla is fairly up-to-date but a number of things that we 
> worked on were ?outside? of the realm of bugzilla and should be reconciled. I 
> think we could do a review of all open bugzilla items, quickly go through the 
> list of bugs fixed in past months (if the .jar is any indication, the last 
> release was in march) and get Yves to remember recent work on core code :)

I did add in CVS the last remaining things I did (mostly tuning the code, 
no big changes), there are still contributed patches we need to 
evaluate/merge.

  >
> 4) add donation/sponsor slug where appropriate, change dates s/2008/2009/ 
> etc.
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 12:50:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:49 GMT