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

Re: Some suggestions for the SOAP api

From: Chris. <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <13224807.post@talk.nabble.com>
To: www-validator@w3.org

Karim A. wrote:
> On 10/15/07, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:
>> Yes, they are, the helpwanted could indeed be removed altogether from
>> soap output.
> I don't actually agree with this Olivier, this link has its
> purpose and meaning  after all.
> ...
> In fact, apps may offer the possibility to help back the W3C.
> But IMHO the soap api should offer more flexibility to the
> app developer in order to be able to represent, formulate and
> design his feedback links ans sub-systems the way he
> want it, without any formal or style impeachments

Karim, tell me what you think of the post(s) I made earlier today regarding
this very thing.  (In my proposed format I chose to keep the link url and
title text -- but each in their own fields for the SOAP consumer).

Karim A. wrote:
>> Regarding your suggestions for the output, things like:
>> >   <m:explanationparagraphtext>
>> ... sound a bit overkill. What's the gain between this and a <p>?
> Again, I strongly believe that an HTML content isn't just text wrapped
> with tags, and the html explanation the way it is given now has two
> sides: the content and its inner semantics.
> So, I agree, HTML explanation is richer hence better than flat text.

I agree with you here too (see my most recent posts). But I also made a
subtle point (one that you've already made) -- that the w3 should remove any
container/styling tags wrapping the explanations.

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Some-suggestions-for-the-SOAP-api-tf4532107.html#a13224807
Sent from the w3.org - www-validator mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 00:38:38 UTC

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