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

Re: Some suggestions for the SOAP api

From: Karim A. <directeur@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:26:17 +0100
Message-ID: <9ddf33ea0710102226l6d9ca356p1b6877cb72262567@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris. <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org

Hi Chris,

Yes, we're on the same wave length (literally translated from french ;-) )
Well, almost actually, since I'm not really ok for the
<m:explanationparagraphtext> elementS for they're superfluous imho.

I mean the explanation (in it's html format) is ONE entity by itself
and I'm sure, the W3C will make its possible to make that
html data semantically and "syntaxically" correct, wont you? ;-)
So once we have data (that's formated in html ok, but well formated)
this can be processed.

I mean there's no harm in having html data, it's after all a format
more elaborated than raw text (since it contains some semantics :
paragraphes and lists...) but it's as elaborated as are text data to
ascii bytes representation ;-)

Another thing:

   CDATA with <div class="ve mid-344">...</div>

I don't think that mentionning <div class=...> in this element
is that required, I could and would use my own classes and
even something other than a "div".
If the mid-344 word (phrase or something) has a "meaning",
a semantic value, then i'd suggest to make it an attribute
of the <m:explanationcontenthtml> element.
So this is my suggestion for this:

<m:explanationcontenthtml mid="344">
   CDATA **without** <div class="ve mid-344">...</div>

Your idea of keeping the backward compatibility is nice too,
but I confess I've stumbled during my tests upon some urls
which have... more than 1000 erros!! no, really! more than that!

Imagine the content duplication, the size of the served response :(

So, I'd happily close my eyes about compatibility, won't you? :)

Anyone wants to keep old represenation? anyone?
See? no one wants it, lets take it off! ;-)

Thanks for your suggestions and ideas!


Innovate Humanum Est

On 10/11/07, Chris. <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com> wrote:
> Gmail Directeur wrote:
> >
> > i.e. use two children <m:feedback> and <m:explanation-content>
> > Instead of the <p class="helpwanted"> and <div class="ve mid-344">
> >
> > This, IMHO, is better for a SOAP consumer, since it avoids
> > all pre-formating. and it separates "semantically" two things:
> > the real explanation and the feedback link.
> >
> Sounds like we're on the same page here -- looks like we both posted the
> same solution.
> Now that I've thought about it more, here's my refined variation on this
> same theme:
> <m:markupvalidationresponse ...
>     ...
>     <m:errors>
>         <m:errorcount>1</m:errorcount>
>         <m:errorlist>
>             <m:error>
>                 ...
>                 <m:explanation>
>                    CDATA as currently (for backwards compatibility)
>                 </m:explanation>
>                 <m:explanationfeebacklink>
>                    CDATA with <p class="helpwanted">...</p>
>                 </m:explanationfeebacklink>
>                 <m:explanationcontenthtml>
>                    CDATA with <div class="ve mid-344">...</div>
>                 </m:explanationfeebackhtml>
>                 <m:explanationfeebackuri>
>                    http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html?uri=;
>                    errmsg_id=344#errormsg
>                 </m:explanationfeebackurl>
>                 <m:explanationcontenttext>
>                    <m:explanationparagraphtext>
>                       Plain text paragraph (probably fancy tag strip
>                       and parse of m:explanationcontenthtml)
>                    </m:explanationparagraphtext>
>                    <m:explanationparagraphtext>
>                       2nd plain text paragraph (probably fancy tag
>                       strip and parse of m:explanationcontenthtml)
>                    <m:explanationparagraphtext>
>                 </m:explanationfeebackhtml>
>             ...
> It's a bit elaborate and it does increase the size of the response (though
> nowhere near the file size of the HTML output version).  But this way:
>   * Backwards compatibility is ensured (if you think that matters --
>      otherwise, deprecate this one).
>   * Raw text messages and the link url for helpwanted are available
>      for those that just want raw data.
>   * HTML versions of just the helpwanted and content are separately
>      available for those that want to keep all the markup within the
>      messages.
> -Chris
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Some-suggestions-for-the-SOAP-api-tf4532107.html#a13149338
> Sent from the w3.org - www-validator mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 05:26:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:53 UTC