- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:23:57 +0900
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Hello Damien, all, On Aug 3, 2006, at 17:17 , Damien LEROY wrote: > As I know the css-validator isn't already patched. But the validator > to patch will be "http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/" or > "http://qa-dev.w3.org:8080/css-validator/validator.html.en" ? Actually the one which will get the patches first will be: http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/css-validator/ I'll remove the instance on tomcat on port 8080, it shouldn't be there. We should think of putting some of the recent patches into production on jigsaw.w3.org soon. > Yes, to debug localy our framework we add only few mime type to each > observer and forgot to add other after. I see. Please update with the list I gave, when you have a chance. >> So for the CSS validator it should be: >> <ucn:mimetype>text/css</ucn:mimetype> >> <ucn:mimetype>text/html</ucn:mimetype> >> <ucn:mimetype>application/xhtml+xml</ucn:mimetype> >> <ucn:mimetype>image/svg+xml</ucn:mimetype> > > There are a specificity in mime type handle of CSS validator. They > handle all mime type in uri input method but only "text/css" in direct > and upload input method. So in UniCORN we add auto redirection from > one input who not handle a mime type to other input which handle if > it's possible. Yes, the list above was for the URI method. And the redirection system is a very good idea. Do we have a documentation of it somewhere? It doesn't have to be as detailed as the contract/output specifications, since these will be used a lot, but some record of it would be good. > We define mime type support in task to set priority which each mime > type is handle by a observer. This can't be make in the observer file > because a same observer can handle mime type with differents priority > according to the task called. > For example in a task like "CSS check" the observer "CSS Validator" > handle the "text/html" mime type with "HIGH" priority but in a task > like "Make all check" it handle with a minor priority to let the > observer "Markup Validator" check the document before. Good points, I remember now why it makes sense to have the mime types defined for each task, it's for the priorities handling. Thanks you (and thanks Jean-Gui too) for that explanation. I'm still wondering if there can't be a way to not "duplicate" the information (or at least, duplicate the work whenever updating that info) but that's not a big deal. Thanks. -- olivier
Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 02:23:27 UTC