- From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
- Date: 01 Apr 2002 14:49:11 +0300
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 04:21, Terje Bless wrote: > A Prolific Patcher! My favourite kind! :-) Yes, mine too :) > >Ok. There may be something weird in the CVS, check.cfg and tips.cfg are > >shown in the Attic? However, checkout of validator-0_6_0 works ok and > >fetches these files too. > > The two files do not exist in HEAD as they were first checked in on the > validator-0_6_0 branch. They'll move into place when I merge. Hmm, I might be missing something here, but cvsweb shows them in the Attic even when looking at the validator-0_6_0 branch. Maybe a cvsweb bug? On a side note, I see dev.w3.org is running a quite old version of cvsweb and cvs. The cvs is a minor nuisance, but the current version doesn't produce diff's that are understood by patch, but one has to manually tweak them. Witness: $ cvs diff httpd/cgi-bin/check Index: httpd/cgi-bin/check =================================================================== RCS file: /sources/public/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check,v retrieving revision 1.200.2.17 diff -a -u -r1.200.2.17 check --- check 2002/03/31 07:04:07 1.200.2.17 +++ check 2002/04/01 11:01:25 [...] ...note that the --- and +++ lines are missing the base directory. I believe it is fixed in recent CVS versions. If someone is to upgrade cvsweb, I'd recommend the FreeBSD version, <http://www.idaemons.org/~knu/cvsweb/>. > I'm trying rilly rilly hard to avoid getting involved with checklink; for > one, Hugo would be angry with me for messing with his baby -- :-) -- and I > don't really know the code so I'm keeping my ten thumbs off it for now. Awright, I'll keep the patches around for the time he looks into it. > >- check-paths.patch: Portability patch. > > Could you explain what problem this patch is trying to solve? Is it a "on > general principle" type thing or is there some immediate problem with it? > Unless it's a showstopper I'm going to leave it out until at least right > before I declare 0.6.0 final. No, it definitely isn't a showstopper, but more of a general principle thing, IMHO using File::Spec is Good Coding Style anyway. Of course, it does not make code portable alone. Actually, some windows flavours seem to cope with "/" as a path separator, but I don't think Macs will... Anyway, post-0.6.0 stuff if you like. > >I tried the absolute URI fixup a few months ago to make validator > >easier to install locally, and found it generally possible, but the > >currently used SSI's are a problem. > > EXPN? What is the problem? An example: source/index.html includes /header.html. No problem yet, can be changed to include ../header.html. But header.html contains links like <a href="/feedback.html">. In order for it to work with source/index.html (and not bound to the server root), the link would have to be <a href="../feedback.html"> which in turn would break every other page that doesn't happen to be one subdir below header.html. I guess some base dir variable stuff could be used to get around this but it would be nicer to be truely relative :) > There is a problem with /check/referer? This may be a partial brain fart, but checking for "$q->path_info() eq '/referer'" might not be enough if the validator can be installed in whatever path below a server root. > >[Misc, new entry] - Check if this needs a fix: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Mar/0055.html > > I'll add a TODO for it until Hugo gets around to looking into it (or bribes > me with enough beer that I look into it). :-) Ah. Beer. Yummy. Someone come bribe me... Cheers, -- Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 06:49:41 UTC