W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Tool request

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:31:05 +0000
Message-Id: <6FB274FD-E551-40A8-B0E5-5AA909CCA698@btinternet.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-validator@w3.org, feedvalidator users <feedvalidator-users@lists.sourceforge.net>, www-archive@w3.org
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>

Why not integrate into the user agent**?

http://www.yergler.net/projects/mozcc/
try http://www.peepo.co.uk when using the creative commons license  
RDF info (PD) in this case.

admittedly this isn't a validator, but does provide a friendly  
graphic for RDF info....

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd
Accessible Solutions
http://www.eas-i.co.uk

**or how about a graphic that was checked every 24 hours?
ie this page was valid in the last 24 hours, obviously the author  
could check more frequently when updating :-)


On 28 Jan 2006, at 20:30, Danny Ayers wrote:


On 1/28/06, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> A little ps. on this thread -
>>
>> Sean B. Palmer has put together a script very much along the lines
>> described earlier - "Validate With Logos", for (X)HTML, using the W3C
>> Validator.
>>
>> http://inamidst.com/proj/valid/
>>
>> I'm hoping he can be encouraged to add hooks for the Feed Validator
>> and RDF Validator too ;-)
>
> It would be very easy to add code that performs this function to the
> Feed Validator itself.
>
> What would be considerably harder is convincing people to install the
> feedvalidator on their own machines.
>
> Having a cgi-script run on my machine every time somebody fetches a
> staticly-served page on your machine, multiplied by the number of  
> people
> who also see a value in this... well, that simply is a non-starter.

Yep, Sean mentioned the same issue (on IRC). Having just one or two
centralised services probably would be unfeasible. But as noted
earlier, there's no reason to run such a script for every page access
- once every update would still mean 100% coverage.

Still, if the code (and dependencies) were packaged in a convenient
form (like a .deb), then perhaps a useful number of people might
install the validation tools on their own machines (where useful > 0).

Such installs need not be individual - it's not inconceivable that the
same install could be shared across a corporate domain, or made
available to web host service providers, alongside their existing web
admin tools.

Even with validator bookmarks in place in my browser it takes time to
check, and demands a lot more attention than glancing at a smiley. The
change might only lower the bar to validation a teeny bit, but on web
scale that may still make a significant difference.

Cheers,
Danny.

--

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Sunday, 29 January 2006 11:31:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:20 GMT