Re: checklink credits

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 03:51, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
> Fine with me, but I'd appreciate not including my email address anywhere
> online, as feedback and bug reports are better sent to the validator
> list, and I receive enough spam already...

Sure, I agree with all of the above.

> BTW, the CVS version of checklink contains an embedded manual page which
> has a AUTHOR section, currently mentioning Hugo, Renaud, me, Frédéric
> and "many other volunteers".

Indeed. Which does not preclude us from updating the credits in the HTML

> > Also, since the development of checklink and check are not necessarily
> > going at the same pace, if you think we should (at least) put the latest
> > version on :80 just ping the list (or me).
> I would appreciate that, as well as (of course) striving to get $TNV of
> validator out as soon as possible.

While we're at it... You wrote in another thread :

> I think the CPAN dependencies-only approach works better for the
> validator and checklink due to configuration issues and the need for
> external binaries which obviously cannot be handled by CPAN. 

I think I misunderstood it at first, but my understanding of it, now, is
that unlike the validator (with its dependencies) checklink could be
distributed as a CPAN module and not just a bundle to take care of
dependencies, right? (though I reckon that the config file might be an

> Reading the diffs between the current "production" version and the
> latest checklink in validator-0_6_0-branch tells me that the upgrade
> would require taking care of checklink.conf, by default in
> /etc/w3c/checklink.conf.

Won't be a problem.

> But the current production version uses as the "trusted" domain. 
> If you wish to preserve that, I'd suggest configuring 2 instances of
> checklink, one without a config file for public use, and another for W3C
> internal use, using a config file containing "Trusted = \.w3\.org$". 
> See the default config in htdocs/config/checklink.conf.

I must confess partial ignorance of this trusted domain. I know from the
code that this trusted domain will be passed authentication information,
but I am still fuzzy on the details. The current prod version does seem
to forward authentication to my private domain even though it is not at, so maybe I am missing the point.

I remember a thread back in early 2003 about this parameter, and as far
as I know there was no clear outcome.
[searching archives]

There was no answer to my (probably clueless) suggestion at
so I gather it is not possible to set a trusted domain in the query
string (makes sense)... In such a case, I need to understand the details
of how having a trusted domain is a problem for other domains, and how
not having one would be an issue for W3C internal use before having a
clear opinion... I think it would be possible, though perhaps sensitive,
to have a specific instance for internal (comma tool) use, though.

> Testing in :8001 first could be a good idea :)

Anytime... Though, if there are a lot of new things, I'd like
to publicize the test and subsequent release a bit.


Received on Sunday, 4 January 2004 21:27:02 UTC