W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > August 2007

Re: [CSSValidator] HTTPHeaders

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:59:40 +0900
Message-Id: <F8504E3B-E94E-417D-A38C-CC404E99C729@w3.org>
Cc: "Public Quality Assurance archives" <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
To: Julien <css.julien@gmail.com>

Salut Julien,

On Aug 7, 2007, at 22:58 , Julien wrote:
> I had a look at it as promised and found a way to add the headers...
> So far, it looks like this on my machine :


> - valid page :
> X-W3C-CSS-Validator-Errors: 0
> X-W3C-CSS-Validator-Status: Valid
> 200 OK
> - invalid page :
> X-W3C-CSS-Validator-Errors: 15
> X-W3C-CSS-Validator-Status: Invalid
> 200 OK

> - unaccessible page
> X-W3C-CSS-Validator-Status: Abort
> 500 Internal Server Error

Looks great.

> What variable name should be used ?
> The same as for the markup validator , or is X-W3C-CSS-Validator- OK ?

I gave this some thought, and I think there would be some benefit in  
using the same headers. That way, we wouldn't be inventing tons of  
headers for each of our tools, when they serve the same purpose, and  
it would perhaps eventually become a reflex to search for X-W3C- 
Validator-* headers.

Admittedly, this could be confusing if a tool (e.g Unicorn) was to  
validate both Markup and CSS, but I think that's less of an issue.

We may eventually want to have an additional "service" header  
describing who performed the validation, e,g:
X-W3C-Validator: CSS-Validator/2.3
X-W3C-Validator: Markup-Validator/0.8.1

Any other opinion?

Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 04:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:52 UTC