W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > September 1999

Re: [Q] Anyone using path info?

From: Robert Szarka <szarka@downcity.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 02:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990905024013.063d2f00@mail.downcity.net>
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
At 08:05 AM 9/4/99 , Terje Bless wrote:
>
>I have a patch sitting ready that will make the validator use the CGI
>module (which, among other things, will make file upload trivial to
>implement). Using CGI rather then rolling your own CGI routines is also
>much more efficient and makes for a far cleaner implementation.
>
>However, to remain bugwards compatible with the existing validator, I had
>to keep most of the old CGI code to deal with the cruft that /might/ be in
>the extra path info part of the request. That is not a good situation. It
>makes the code rather hairy and it partly defeats the purpose of using
>CGI.pm.
>
>Does anyone actually use this feature?
>
[...]

By "additional cruft" do you mean something like the following?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.szarka.org/test/xhtml.html

or is there *real* cruft that can go in there I don't know about?

The usage above could/should be replaced with

http://validator.w3.org/check/referer

on that particular page, actually, but I could see how the other approach
would be useful for automating validation or using a handy list of pages to
validate...  Arguably, someone that wants to automate validation should
probably just run the validator on their own site.  I keep meaning to get
around to setting it up for myself and my customers, so I guess if you
improved the code it might encourage me to do it.  :)


-- 

Robert Szarka [RS495]
Managing Partner, Operations
DownCity, LLC
+1 860 823 3000
Received on Sunday, 5 September 1999 16:20:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:52 GMT