- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:47:19 +0900
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce@obviously.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
I guess one thing that might be worth a try is to add an option that lists the errors by 'seriousness', unknown elements being more serious than unknown attributes. But I have no idea whether it would be easy or difficult to order the error messages. For XML, another approach would be to do two checks, one for well-formedness and another for validation. Well-formedness errors are usually much more fundamental. Nick, Terje, Bjoern,... what do you think? Regards, Martin. At 20:27 01/08/02 +0100, Nick Kew wrote: >The reason for this is the event-driven parser used (basically James >Clark's SP). >Given this, rearranging the messages in the validator is not easy. >In my own work (Code Valet), I have taken an alternative approach of >modifying SP itself, and dispensing with the Perl wrapper. In principle, >this approach offers the best prospects for substantial improvements >to the message reporting. However, it has proved a much harder >programming task, and useful results are slow coming. > >You may wish to look at the discussion and code at ><URL:http://valet.webthing.com/xml/> >which I believe represents an important step in the rationalisation of >the validator messages. But it's not (yet) what you're asking for! > >-- >Nick Kew > >Site Valet - the essential service for anyone with a website. ><URL:http://valet.webthing.com/> >
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 23:07:32 UTC