W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2007

Which output version is considered the "canonical" validator output?

From: Brian Wilson <bloo@blooberry.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:14:35 +0200
Message-ID: <46494FCB.20407@blooberry.com>
To: www-validator@w3.org

Hi,

I've been reading up on the archives on various issues I've been running 
into with my local copy of the W3C validator. I'd like to say that I've 
been making progress in tweaking the output to suit my needs, but that 
isn't the case. Despite the numerous hours of trying to sift through the 
code to see if I can alter it to do what I want, I would characterize my 
efforts thus far as just "playing with" the code.

Most specifically, I want to implement messageid notations in the SOAP 
output (I notice Miguel Gastelumendi requested the same thing a few days 
ago), but the perl templating system is not letting me get very far. 
While I have a good familiarity with perl, the templating system is 
resisting being cracked (so far).

I was going to "settle" for using the SOAP output as-is, but I've run in 
to an issue tonight.

In analyzing the following URL, the HTML, SOAP and XML outputs all 
return different information using the default settings on:
    http://ebni.com/byrds/

- The HTML output has a single fatal warning(04):
    No Character Encoding Found!
- The XML output has 70 warnings (it must be assuming a char encoding)
- The SOAP output just appears to be broken

Is the HTML output considered to be the "canonical" version? If so, I 
could pare down/demolish the HTML templates to generate exactly what I 
want (which is pretty close to the SOAP output, but if I can't trust its 
output compared with the HTML version, I'll take what I can get).

Thanks for any insight,
-Brian
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 13:18:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:24 GMT