W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Validator timeout and XML-LibXML bug

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:00:40 +0300
To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-qa-dev@w3.org, ted@w3.org, jean-gui@w3.org, tgambet@w3.org
Message-Id: <201006140100.40713.ville.skytta@iki.fi>
On Friday 11 June 2010, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le vendredi 11 juin 2010 à 01:34 +0300, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
> > Candidate fix is now in CVS, seems to fix the problem on my box and
> > qa-dev:
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check.diff?r1=1.776&r2=
> > 1.777 (Needs also catalog.xml which is also in CVS).
> Wow, thanks, you rock!
> > I don't know how easy it would be port just this change over 0.8.6.
> Ted, Jean-Gui, Thomas, could one of you take a look at preparing a new
> release of the validator with that proposed fix? That bug explains both
> the increased load on the validator, and a number of the recent bug
> reports sent to www-validator.

I've just brought back support for non-structured libxml2 errors in CVS.  
Unfortunately I don't have anything to test it with as I don't know what 
triggers such errors from XML::LibXML.  But if the code worked before, it 
quite likely still does.

So as far as I'm concerned, CVS is again in a state that a real validator 
release (1.0 finally?) instead of patch backporting would be a good 
alternative.  I'll go and update whatsnew.html after sending this mail.

> > Sigh.  The more I work with XML::LibXML, the less I like it :(
> I'm hoping these are transient problems with that library rather than
> structural ones; or are you thinking we should look into the possibility
> of getting rid of that dependency altogether?

Well, it is kind of overkill for what the validator uses it for, does not seem 
to be that actively maintained, and I'm finding more gotchas with it than I'd 
like (documentation isn't that great).  And for pretty much the most 
interesting thing for validator usage -- error handling -- it has two 
implementations of which it may use one or the other, and the docs don't say 
which of them is used in which scenarios :(
Received on Sunday, 13 June 2010 22:01:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:57 UTC