- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 02:35:43 +0200
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
* olivier Thereaux wrote: >Let's not forget, however, that the use of the validator outside of the >wvo/qa-dev platform has apparently increased recently, and is bringing >us a big user base, and although I cannot quantify it, I would be >almost certain that it also brings us *quality* participation. All of >this because we've made efforts to make the validator easier to install >on various platforms, and I do not wish to cancel these efforts without >a very good reason to do so. I am just saying that we should not blue-sky portability requirements, especially since `check`'s portability depends heavily on that of its dependencies. I don't want to run into arguments about whether we can use version W of X that not work with version Y of Z without a very good reason to do so either. Win32 support is a good example, OpenSP makes it something between very difficult and impossible to use -R on Win32, if `check` MUST work without modifications on Win32, what would we do? a) [_] ignore the requirement and release a new version b) [_] work around the issue in our code checking $^O c) [_] wait until someone fixes OpenSP and expect Win32 users to compile OpenSP from CVS d) [_] wait until proper Win32 binaries are released e) [_] drop -R for all platforms We currently operate in terms of a) just that there is no requirement for Win32 support yet. With such a requirement, we could no longer do a) and I seriously doubt that we will agree to do c), d), or e) which leaves us with doing b) -- but as that would most likely just turn -R off for Win32, and considering that Win32 user have to change at least the shebang line anyway (until we rename `check` to `check.pl` or let them do that), a) would probably be a better option as that would provide a better chance to make Win32 users aware that there is a potential security risk when using the Validator on Win32. But then we do not really "support" Win32, rendering the introduction of such a Win32 portability requirement quite pointless.
Received on Monday, 6 September 2004 00:36:30 UTC