- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:37:46 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, david@allsopmedia.com, "public-qa-dev@w3.org list" <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Hello Henri, Hi all, On 14-Jul-08, at 6:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > * json_output.tmpl doesn't use the forward-compatible message typing > of the Validator.nu format. json_output.tmpl uses > "type": "warning", > for warnings whereas the Validator.nu format uses > "type" : "info", > "subtype": "warning", > in order to keep the semantics of "type" frozen for forward > compatibility while allowing extensibility in "subtype". It would be > nice if the W3C Validator adopted the forward-compatible type/ > subtype scheme. No strong opinion either way, but I rather fail to see why using type="error,warning,info" would hamper extensibility. I have honestly no idea what a "forward-compatible" format is, which may explain my puzzlement here. Could you detail the rationale? > * It seems that "extract" contains an HTML-escaped snippet intended > for inclusion as part of the HTML output and marks the point of > interest with <strong title=\"Position where error was detected.\"> > and </strong>. The Validator.nu format assumes that the extract is > not HTML-escaped and the point of interest is communicated using the > "hiliteStart" and "hiliteLength" entries. Seems like the highlighting routine in check should be made format- independent, or at least take format as an option. Karl, are you on this or should we work on it together? > * It seems that 0-based column counts are emitted, although the > format uses 1-based column counts. That is, 1 should be added to the > column. I don't think the format is 0-based and 1 should be added, but indeed in some cases (missing doctype) the parser yields a message at line 1, col 0. That could/should be escaped in the error generation routine. > * The "explanation" and "messageid" keys aren't part of the format > spec, but I'd be happy to add them as optional with a note that they > are emitted by the W3C Validator. Any opinion on what format to adopt there? Would escaped HTML (as it is now) make sense? > Currently, json_ouput.tmpl outputs "messageid" as a string even > though the string always contains a formatted number. it can also be a string. > I think it would make sense to keep it that way, since if > Validator.nu adds message ids in the future, the ids will likely be > strings--not numbers. indeed. Thanks, -- olivier
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 11:38:23 UTC