- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:38:22 +0900
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <B90186E6-EF35-11D8-AC96-000A95E54002@w3.org>
On Aug 10, 2004, at 2:21, Terje Bless wrote: > > We set up «W3C::Markup::Validator::*» in «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/W3C/…» > and > build a complete set of backend modules there; completely separated > from main > Validator code. ... > Second, we should create «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/W3C/MVS/» and begin > populating > it. Are you suggesting to populate everything in «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/W3C/MVS/», e.g «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/W3C/MVS/HTTP/Charset», «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/W3C/MVS/IP::ACL» etc? Or «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/IP/ACL», «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/W3C/Markup/Validator» etc The latter fits the use of «$CVSROOT/perl/modules/W3C/MVS/» closer, as we tend to match CVS path and perl module namespace. Obvious drawback is the lack of one cvs module to 'cvs get'. On a side note, I think I prefer W3C::MarkupValidator to W3C::Markup::Validator. Any W3C::Markup::* we could think of, that would make the namespace necessary? > A while back I hacked up a Perl module to interface with OpenSP using > C++ and > XS calling into OpenSP's Generic API (with much help from Nick and a > few other > kind folks). This is out on CPAN — «SGML::Parser::OpenSP» — and the > code is > currently published on SF.net <http://sf.net/projects/spo/>. The code > is not > in a state where it's actually useable for anything, but recently > Björn has > been doing some hacking on this and seems to have found a way to save > it. The result of the hacking is not saved yet, is it? I could not find it in either SF's CVS or CPAN. > First off we should work on SGML::Parser::OpenSP — or possibly whatever > subclass will sit in front of it (and an XML Processor) — seperately. > Maybe on > SF.net where S::P::O lives; possibly migrated to dev.w3.org and qa-dev. SF's admittedly lower entry barrier for developers did not bring in a lot of developers for SPO so migrating to dev at some point could make sense? qa-dev is not an issue, we can test there regardless of where the code is distributed/hosted. -- olivier
Received on Monday, 16 August 2004 03:38:26 UTC