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

Re: My validator patches

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:14:06 +0100
To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020318012213-f01050003-31D34018-3A06-11D6-95F4-00039300CF5C-1013-010c@>
Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote:

>[Note: my email address has changed, I've resubscribed with the correct
>one, ville.skytta@iki.fi]

Ok. BTW, I have a habit of CCing people on w-v messages -- both because not
everyone subscribes before sending stuff here and because lists.w3.org
hickups some times -- so please let me know if you'd rather I didn't.

BTW, please feel free to stop by #validator on irc.openprojects.net. It's
taken over a lot of the development-related discussions about the validator
that used to be on the list. I'm usually there (logging if I'm away) Sean
and Nick are there or stops by pretty much every day; and Gerald is much
easier to get a hold of on IRC then on email (when he's not /completely/
AWOL as he's been lately).

>>* validator-paths.patch * validator-protocol.patch *
>>validator-server.patch * validator-style.patch - All deferred until I
>>have better time to integrate them. (that might mean tomorrow or next
>>year; my time for validator is unpredictable, sorry!)
>If you need more info about these, I'll be happy to help out.

I think mainly I need to consider the implications, but I'll certainly take
you up on that if necessary. :-)

>>* validator-redhat.patch [...]
>Yes, and actually this was/is never meant to be included in the W3C
>distribution.  It only contains a couple of trivial changes in order to
>make installation on a RedHat box easier.

Easy install on RH is a goal (along with easy or easier install on Debian,
*BSD, `doze, and Mac OS X).

>>* validator-warnings.patch * validator-xhtml.patch - Both "rejected" in
>>that I think I'm going to fix the real problems instead of patching the
>>symptoms. If that drags out I may look at applying these as temporary
>>measures, but I'd rather do it the right way.
>Ok.  But I think both of these patches contain some bits and pieces that
>would be useful in any case. Could you elaborate a bit more on how are
>you going "fix the real problems", the XHTML ones in particular?  Using
>some kind of template system, XML/XSLT, other?

The warnings patch contains mostly workarounds for fundamental problems in
the code. Instead of nuking warnings one by one I'm going to refactor it
and then rewrite it to avoid the problems in the first place.

XHTML will be handled with a template system of some kind most likely.
HTML::Template is the lead candidate ATM.

>>As I've mentioned before, I'm very gratefull for your taking the time
>>to do this. My own time for hacking on Validator is sporadic at best
>>these days and so any contribution is a great help. Your patches were
>>very well done and dealt squarely with issues we need to fix. My thanks
>>and kudos again!
>Thanks to you for (finally :)) taking the time to check them out.  And
>I'll be probably hacking on the validator in the near future too and can
>help out every now and then. By the way, what's your policy with CVS
>commit access?  At some point of time, I guess I wouldn't mind having
>that... ;)

I dunno, that's Gerald's domain. I expect CVS access will be given "at
need", so if you contrubute stuff often enough that not having cvs wrote
access becomes a problem we'll set you up with it. But note well that the
Validator is Gerald's baby; I have no official affiliation with it
whatsoever. I just sent patches often enough that it was more efficient for
me to "send" them as "cvs ci" instead of as "diff -u | mail". :-)

>>[0] - Which is so utterly broken that it doesn't even run on _my_
>>development system so it sure as hell won't run on your production
>>machine. Capiche? :-)
>Ah.  I'll go take a look... suppose I want to submit patches in the near
>future, is this the branch they should be against (not the HEAD)?


I'll merge anything that comes in that was made against HEAD, and HEAD is a
stable target. Development happens on this branch so patches against that
makes /my/ life easier, but it's also a moving target (moving in fits and
spurts, but moving nonetheless ;D) so it may be a pain to keep up or know
when to grab a diff.

I just tagged validator-0_6_0-a1 as a checkpoint. It should run with some
caveats (and is what's running on validator.w3.org:8001 ATM) and may be a
good place to start from. I'll make checkpoints such as this every now and
again when the code is somewhat stable.

Of course we are the good guys! We define what is good and evil. All other
definitions are wrong, and possibly the product of a deranged imagination.
                                                         -- Stephen Harris
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 19:22:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:32 UTC