W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Suggestion: Check elment first, attribute second

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:47:19 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20010803114419.038adb50@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce@obviously.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
I guess one thing that might be worth a try is to add an option
that lists the errors by 'seriousness', unknown elements being
more serious than unknown attributes. But I have no idea whether
it would be easy or difficult to order the error messages.

For XML, another approach would be to do two checks, one for
well-formedness and another for validation. Well-formedness
errors are usually much more fundamental.

Nick, Terje, Bjoern,... what do you think?

Regards,   Martin.

At 20:27 01/08/02 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:

>The reason for this is the event-driven parser used (basically James
>Clark's SP).

>Given this, rearranging the messages in the validator is not easy.

>In my own work (Code Valet), I have taken an alternative approach of
>modifying SP itself, and dispensing with the Perl wrapper.  In principle,
>this approach offers the best prospects for substantial improvements
>to the message reporting.  However, it has proved a much harder
>programming task, and useful results are slow coming.
>
>You may wish to look at the discussion and code at
><URL:http://valet.webthing.com/xml/>
>which I believe represents an important step in the rationalisation of
>the validator messages.  But it's not (yet) what you're asking for!
>
>--
>Nick Kew
>
>Site Valet - the essential service for anyone with a website.
><URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 23:07:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:59 GMT