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

Re: proposal to have sequential / grouped messages in soap output

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:19:36 -0400
Message-Id: <D5B198C7-2E30-490E-93C2-DC3DCCA069F4@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>, "Chris. Parrish" <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>, Brett Bieber <brett.bieber@gmail.com>, Struan Donald <struandonald@gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

Hi Henri, thanks for your reply.

On Oct 29, 2007, at 12:37 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Does the sequential output require a rewrite of client code? If it  
> does anyway, it might make sense to drop the SOAPness and make it  
> plain old XML. Or are clients actually benefiting from the SOAP  
> envelope in terms of tool support in a way that would break with POX?

As far as I can tell most implementations just parse the XML of the  
SOAP output. I think one of them does build upon a SOAP library and  
thus expects the format to be in a SOAP envelope.

One option I am pondering about is to leave the SOAP output as it is  
(that is, with its oddly grouped messages) and revive an XML output.

I looked at:
and it does look usable. The more I look at it, the more I think the  
W3C validator could adopt this as XML output (we used to have one but  
never really documented and since then deprecated, we could revive  
it) provided we can make a few (backward compatible) changes.

* adding a warning element to info and error - would be nicer IMHO  
than having warnings a type of info
* checkedby, validity, doctype, charset, errorcount, warningcount etc  
- let's make them optional, but I think they are useful. They aren't  
a problem for a streaming response, if sent at the very end, anyway.
* some kind of identifier for the errors. I realize this may bring  
some headaches if the format is shared by various tools, but for  
localization and/or customization, it'd be extremely useful.

The output format you created is sequential, which is a good basis  
for what we need. We'd also need a way to group errors by type, but  
that can be an alternative format with a similar base. The main issue  
is that your locator elements give their location as attributes,  
which makes it hard to represent that a tool found several instances  
of a given message.

What do you think?

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 19:19:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:54 UTC