W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-unicorn@w3.org > September 2006

Re: 2006-09-07 some test on unicorn

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:25:55 +0900
Message-Id: <8C387701-4D12-4AEA-A95D-D03F7BE48081@w3.org>
Cc: public-unicorn@w3.org
To: Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.krebs3@netcourrier.com>

Bonjour Nicolas,

On Sep 21, 2006, at 19:08 , Nicolas Krebs wrote:
> An idea for a web validator, could be a future version of unicorn,  
> or a
> successor :
> During the check of an html document, the validator does not check  
> only
> this one (markup, wai, embeded css etc), but also the linked document.
> I did give some example : rss, atom, css, rdf (all linked by  
> <link>), svg
> (linked by <object>). I test if the specific valildator check the  
> file (and the
> result is "checked" for the 6), and next i test if unicorn check  
> the file
> if i submit only the (uri of the) embedding file (and the answer is  
> "not checked"
> except for css).

I see now, thanks a lot for clarifying your thoughts. I agree it is  
an area of work which could be interesting in the future.

> Next step in the road : even, coupled to a web site copier/mirrorer  
> (like Httrack
> http://www.httrack.com/), capacity to check a whole web site by  
> just clicking
> one command (such i can miror a whole web site with Httrack).

My experience with e.g the W3C link checker makes me lean toward  
disagreeing with you here.

Not that I disagree with crawling and batch-checking a site, I think  
that's an excellent idea. But I disagree with the idea that the  
Unicorn tool should take that on: the Unicorn, at this point at  
least, is a web-based tool, and hence produces results in real-time.  
Crawling and checking a whole site is, I believe, something more  
adapted to an asynchronous, scheduled job, and hence more adapted to  
a tool such as the log validator.


Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 05:26:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:39:39 UTC