W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2002

Re: New set of patches for 0.6.0

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: 01 Apr 2002 14:49:11 +0300
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1017661751.1526.58.camel@bobcat.ods.org>
On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 04:21, Terje Bless wrote:

> A Prolific Patcher! My favourite kind! :-)

Yes, mine too :)

> >Ok.  There may be something weird in the CVS, check.cfg and tips.cfg are
> >shown in the Attic?  However, checkout of validator-0_6_0 works ok and
> >fetches these files too.
> 
> The two files do not exist in HEAD as they were first checked in on the
> validator-0_6_0 branch. They'll move into place when I merge.

Hmm, I might be missing something here, but cvsweb shows them in the
Attic even when looking at the validator-0_6_0 branch.  Maybe a cvsweb
bug?

On a side note, I see dev.w3.org is running a quite old version of
cvsweb and cvs.  The cvs is a minor nuisance, but the current version
doesn't produce diff's that are understood by patch, but one has to
manually tweak them.  Witness:

$ cvs diff httpd/cgi-bin/check
Index: httpd/cgi-bin/check
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check,v
retrieving revision 1.200.2.17
diff -a -u -r1.200.2.17 check
--- check       2002/03/31 07:04:07     1.200.2.17
+++ check       2002/04/01 11:01:25
[...]

...note that the --- and +++ lines are missing the base directory.  I
believe it is fixed in recent CVS versions.  If someone is to upgrade
cvsweb, I'd recommend the FreeBSD version,
<http://www.idaemons.org/~knu/cvsweb/>.

> I'm trying rilly rilly hard to avoid getting involved with checklink; for
> one, Hugo would be angry with me for messing with his baby -- :-) -- and I
> don't really know the code so I'm keeping my ten thumbs off it for now.

Awright, I'll keep the patches around for the time he looks into it.

> >- check-paths.patch: Portability patch.
> 
> Could you explain what problem this patch is trying to solve? Is it a "on
> general principle" type thing or is there some immediate problem with it?
> Unless it's a showstopper I'm going to leave it out until at least right
> before I declare 0.6.0 final.

No, it definitely isn't a showstopper, but more of a general principle
thing, IMHO using File::Spec is Good Coding Style anyway.  Of course, it
does not make code portable alone.  Actually, some windows flavours seem
to cope with "/" as a path separator, but I don't think Macs will...
Anyway, post-0.6.0 stuff if you like.

> >I tried the absolute URI fixup a few months ago to make validator
> >easier to install locally, and found it generally possible, but the
> >currently used SSI's are a problem.
> 
> EXPN? What is the problem?

An example: source/index.html includes /header.html.
No problem yet, can be changed to include ../header.html.
But header.html contains links like <a href="/feedback.html">.
In order for it to work with source/index.html (and not bound to the
server root), the link would have to be <a href="../feedback.html">
which in turn would break every other page that doesn't happen to be one
subdir below header.html.  I guess some base dir variable stuff could be
used to get around this but it would be nicer to be truely relative :)

> There is a problem with /check/referer?

This may be a partial brain fart, but checking for "$q->path_info() eq
'/referer'" might not be enough if the validator can be installed in
whatever path below a server root.

> >[Misc, new entry] - Check if this needs a fix:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Mar/0055.html
> 
> I'll add a TODO for it until Hugo gets around to looking into it (or bribes
> me with enough beer that I look into it). :-)

Ah.  Beer.  Yummy.  Someone come bribe me...

Cheers,
-- 
Ville Skyttä
ville.skytta@iki.fi
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 06:49:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:03 GMT