- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:31:05 +0000
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-validator@w3.org, feedvalidator users <feedvalidator-users@lists.sourceforge.net>, www-archive@w3.org
Why not integrate into the user agent**? http://www.yergler.net/projects/mozcc/ try http://www.peepo.co.uk when using the creative commons license RDF info (PD) in this case. admittedly this isn't a validator, but does provide a friendly graphic for RDF info.... regards Jonathan Chetwynd Accessible Solutions http://www.eas-i.co.uk **or how about a graphic that was checked every 24 hours? ie this page was valid in the last 24 hours, obviously the author could check more frequently when updating :-) On 28 Jan 2006, at 20:30, Danny Ayers wrote: On 1/28/06, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Danny Ayers wrote: >> A little ps. on this thread - >> >> Sean B. Palmer has put together a script very much along the lines >> described earlier - "Validate With Logos", for (X)HTML, using the W3C >> Validator. >> >> http://inamidst.com/proj/valid/ >> >> I'm hoping he can be encouraged to add hooks for the Feed Validator >> and RDF Validator too ;-) > > It would be very easy to add code that performs this function to the > Feed Validator itself. > > What would be considerably harder is convincing people to install the > feedvalidator on their own machines. > > Having a cgi-script run on my machine every time somebody fetches a > staticly-served page on your machine, multiplied by the number of > people > who also see a value in this... well, that simply is a non-starter. Yep, Sean mentioned the same issue (on IRC). Having just one or two centralised services probably would be unfeasible. But as noted earlier, there's no reason to run such a script for every page access - once every update would still mean 100% coverage. Still, if the code (and dependencies) were packaged in a convenient form (like a .deb), then perhaps a useful number of people might install the validation tools on their own machines (where useful > 0). Such installs need not be individual - it's not inconceivable that the same install could be shared across a corporate domain, or made available to web host service providers, alongside their existing web admin tools. Even with validator bookmarks in place in my browser it takes time to check, and demands a lot more attention than glancing at a smiley. The change might only lower the bar to validation a teeny bit, but on web scale that may still make a significant difference. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Sunday, 29 January 2006 11:31:13 UTC