W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-cvs@w3.org > April 2002

Re: validator/httpd/cgi-bin check

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:59:08 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: www-validator-cvs@w3.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020401095438-r01050000-B76AC40A-4545-11D6-8C76-00039300CF5C-1013-010c@>
Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> wrote:

>I have been very glad to see you working on the validator. I have seen
>some charset-related update messages. I would like to have a look at
>things sooner or later. Do I have to check out validator-0_6_0, or what?
>Or should I wait a bit more?

I think it's best to wait a while longer. While the current code runs, and
Ill be making a snapshot available soon, it's in a total state of flux
right now. In particular, I know charset handling is broken ATM and I need
to fix that before there is much point in you going over it.

I have calculated with running it by you for a check once it settles down a
bit. I don't think we are in any rush, as I need to 1) track down Gerald,
and 2) persuade him to upgrade the OS on v.w3.org to something slightly
more up to date, before updating the live site is even possible.

The good news is that it looks like I've finally been able to make "check"
run under mod_perl! It still needs a lot of tweaking before it could run in
production, but at least we're getting there.

As a point of reference, the current diff to my branch point is 1858 lines,
or ~65KB of changes. And that's even before the mondo patch I have sitting
on my local copy and the latest round of patches from Ville Skyttä!

>Also, I just had a look at http://validator.w3.org:8001/. I'm not sure
>this is current, 

It's the latest revision of the current code that will run more or less as
intended. :-)

>Inverted text in large portions is not good style. It's very tyring on
>the eye.

Well, there are two schools of thought on that issue, but I'll agree that
the primary colors were a bit much. With some help from Aaron Swartz I've
made some changes to make the colors a bit less, uhm, "loud". The red is
still there, but it's scheduled for some loving attention ASAP.

>And red makes people get desparate: "What, red again? I'll give up.".

Yes. The point was to use the color to augument the message: "Stop! There
is an Error here!", and the bright red was just the first thing I had
available; I've always intended to make it less violent. Unfortunately,
color coordination and such aren't exactly my strong side, so any women (or
effeminate men) in the audience, feel free to speak up! :-)

Seriously, though, I'm going to mute the colors as best I can -- at least
to the point where they no longer make you want to claw your eyes out --
but keep the basic red tint for indicating "not valid", and green or blue
tint to indicate that it is valid.

When we finally achieve a decent separation of logic and presentation, I'd
hoped to invite some good designers to fix up my inept attempts at layout.
I would think we have several acomplished designers on the list, and if
push should come to shove, I think I can probably bug a couple of CSS gurus
sufficiently that they'll be willing to at least give advice. :-)

>Also, for a certain page (http://www.microsoft.com) it says "This
>Page Is NOT Valid unknown!" Do you mean something like "This Page Is NOT
>Valid: DOCTYPE unknown!"?

No, it means that that logic isn't completely done yet. :-)

It's supposed to say either "This page is not valid Whatever" or "This page
is not valid" period. I just haven't gotten around to implementing that
yet. :-)

"I don't mind being thought of as a badguy,
 but it /really/ annoys me to be thought of
 as an *incompetent* badguy!" -- John Moreno
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 02:54:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:02:01 UTC