- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 20:51:48 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Bud Hovell <bud@uzix.com>
- cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Bud Hovell wrote: > Hi, Nick ... > > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www- > > validator/2001JulSep/0476.html > > > > Bud appears to be replying to something I haven't seen. > > Sorry - your post was a reply to the one cited above, and reads: No, I looked that one up before replying. But your post was a reply to something else. No matter. > NK= This is the approach taken by cg-eye (see my .sig). > > Regrettably, this would not satisfy our local conditions, either. We make > available anonymous logins where the username/password are random strings > unknown to the users logging in (who thus need not reveal any personal > identifying information.) Once inside, such a user lacks the necessary > password information to fulfill an authentication request. And the extra > hand-motion required entirely defeats the immediacy of one-click > validation. OK, so you need a customised solution. Either download a validator and hack it, or hire a consultant (me, for instance) to do it for you. > We'd certainly consider Site Valet, were it not that manual entry is > evidently required for protected pages, which doesn't meet our needs. We have one corporate intranet client whose protected pages are spidered daily. It's not hard to customise. > The new "security" mechanism in the script is non-standard on two grounds: I think the answer to that has to be that if it doesn't meet your needs, then don't use it. At least not as-is. -- Nick Kew Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web. <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 15:52:01 UTC