- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:57:21 +0200
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: "Chris. Parrish" <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>, Brett Bieber <brett.bieber@gmail.com>, Struan Donald <struandonald@gmail.com>, W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Oops. This had slipped past my radar. Sorry about my previous message being silly without taking this into account. On Oct 18, 2007, at 03:23, olivier Thereaux wrote: > * build a new version (from scratch if necessary, although reusing > the work done in the w3c validator, as well as Henri's[1], would be > a good idea) of the API [...] > [1] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Validator.nu_XML_Output > > Henri, would you be interested in merging the two outputs together? That depends on what changes it would entail to the Validator.nu native format. I don't want to add SOAP cruft to the Validator.nu native XML format. I had a look at the HTML output of the W3C Validator. It seems to me that the Validator.nu XML format is capable of conceptually capturing all the non-redundant data that is exposed in the HTML output of the W3C Validator except the parse tree and the W3C Validator implementation-specific error id numbers. The outcome of the validation (success/failure/indeterminate) is not explicitly communicated by the Validator.nu XML format as the outcome can be unambiguously computed from the data that is explicitly communicated. Hence, putting the outcome in the format explicitly would be redundant and would require the processing model to define required client action in case the client received an self- contradicting response. There appear to be two minor practical issues that are not conceptual mismatches: 1) The W3C Validator represents quoted markup bits as plain text content delimited by ASCII quotes whereas the Validator.nu XML format expects those pieces to be marked up using the XHTML code element. The Validator.nu XML format does not prevent W3C Validator-style message strings, but it would be nice if the quoted markup bits were marked up sing the XHTML code element. 2) The message elaborations in the W3C Validator are stored as snippets of HTML source text but the Validator.nu XML format requires the elaborations to be inline XHTML fragments. A conversion from HTML source snippets to XHTML fragments would be needed. As for the conceptually missing parts, the representation of the parse tree would need to be figured out. (The parse tree idea on the wiki failed review on #whatwg.) Moreover, the issue of implementation- specific error ids would need to be addressed somehow. Am I missing something? What additions to the format would be required? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 12:58:07 UTC