- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:36:40 +0900
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1c52f99cb36ea9007b1698003caefd2f@w3.org>
On Feb 6, 2005, at 6:41, Terje Bless wrote: > Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > _Private_ HTTP header fields; they're not supposed to be meaningful > outside of > the instance where /check is talking to itself. I dunno. The way we're > using > them I have few qualms about it. Would they allow instance B to check instance A, and recursively? Do we care about such a situation, one way or another? >> I further think that refusal to check the validator output is a bad >> idea (we, after all, link to that in the results page), so the default >> should be to limit two or at least one recursion. > Well, there's a distinction between what we ship as a default and what > we > configure our installation on v.w3.org to do. The default as shipped > should be > zero because we want to err on the side of caution, but v.w3.org > should be > able to check itself and qa-dev should probably allow infinite > recursion. To the points already stated in this discussion, I would add that we often recommend checking a "local document" to test any local installation. one recursion thus seems to be a good minimum for every installation, and, perhaps also a good maximum. I would lean toward making this a default, and at least hardcoded minimum. -- olivier
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 03:36:53 UTC