W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Validation broken for protected pages

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>
Message-ID: <20011217203337.L1558-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

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.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 15:52:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:25 UTC