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

Re: suggestions from a developers point of view

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 03:45:42 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: Adam van den Hoven <AvandenHoven@cucbc.com>
Message-ID: <r01050300-1015-5F2A42EEB31511D6B8DC00039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Adam van den Hoven <AvandenHoven@cucbc.com> wrote:

>What I would like to be able to do is submit, not a URL or a file, but a
>string. This would make it easy (if not particularly safe for a
>production environment) to create an HTTP request from within my JSP
>code that would retrieve the validation report (even better is to make
>the java.io.PrintWriter.flush() method do the validation and append it
>to the output). This way the developers will have no problem producing
>valid HTML.

You can already do this. Just put your string into the "fragment" CGI
parameter. You can either GET or POST your data, it makes no difference to
the Validator, but POST is the (strongly!) preferred method.

Unfortunately, this particular feature is somewhat badly maintained at the
moment -- it may even be completely broken! -- so you are likely to run
into problems here. However, if you decide to use this feature I'll make it
a priority to fix it at least sufficiently that you can get it done. Not
that my prioritizing it gives any particular guarantee for timely fixes,
you understand, but thems the breaks. :-)


>Also, it would be nice to retrieve the report as xml.

The current development version has support for XML, EARL/RDF, and N3
output formats. Unfortunately, these are _highly_ experimental and will not
even reach "alpha", much less "beta" or "final", status in the near future.
In the next update of the public version these output options will be
available for experimentation, but they are *guaranteed* to change -- I'll
_deliberately_ change them periodically just to ensure nobody tries to rely
on the current output! :-) -- and so won't be suitable for your needs.

What might be more use to you are the custom HTTP header fields that reveal
the valid/invalid status of the checked document. It's only a boolean -- as
opposed to a full report -- and a count of errors, but it might be a
usefull aide in automating the checking. This too will be available on an
experimental basis in the next public update, but this will be a lot more
stable then the other output options and much easier to maintain backward
compatibility with should they need to change.

Hope that helps you a little further. There will be a public beta period
before the new version goes live; if you want to experiment with that once
it's announced I'd be happy to help you get up and running.


-- 
If you believe that will stop spammers, you're sadly misled. Rusty hooks,
rectally administered fuel oil enemas, and the gutting of their machines,
*that* stops spammers!                                         -- Saundo
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 18:22:40 GMT

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