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

Re: Beta: outline feature broken

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 19:42:35 +0100
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A01060006-1022-7FBD553EFFDC11D6ACB000039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:

>On Sun, Oct 27, 2002, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
>>http://validator.w3.org:8001/check?uri=http://www.w3.org;outline=1 is
>>said to give an outline of the document but it does not.
>
>This was one of the big pre-beta questions among developers. Some said
>it was better if the requested feature (outline, source, etc) was there
>regardless of the result, others thought it was better to leave
>"details" out if the document is valid.
>
>This is an open question, opinions are welcome.


Ok, I think the feedback has given a fairly clear image of how at least
people on this list want the Validator to behave. I'm still not convinced
that this is not due to the higher then average level of technical
competency among said group, but it's become fairly clear that of those
who've communicated an opinion it is mostly not in favour of the current
behaviour.

Version 0.6.0 -- the one we're currently beta testing -- will likely be
released with the current behaviour intact (for practical reasons). This
ought to give a broader audience a chance to chime in on the issue. Unless
that feedback is overwhelmingly positive, I'll aim to release a "0.6.1"[0]
version that addresses this issue fairly shortly after 0.6.0.

This new version will most likely have some sort of "verbose" switch that
will determine whether or not Show Source and friends are obeyed, with it's
default value determining what result you get if it's not explicitly
specified.


Does this address everyone's concerns?





[0] - With the slight caveat that if it looks like 0.7.0 will happen
      faster then planned, it may wait for that version instead.


-- 
> ...publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition...
Well, you've got me there.   I have no idea what any of those have to do with
SGML. Next you'll be claiming that running NSGMLS constitutes an unauthorized
public performance of SGML.                                  -- Richard Tobin
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2002 13:42:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:04 GMT