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

[FYI] todo.html updated...

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 20:30:40 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r01050100-1014-C060031C644A11D6943900039300CF5C@[]>
Just FYI to everyone on the list;

I've updated the TODO list on <URL:http://validator.w3.org:8001/todo.html>
to reflect current status and future plans. There are now three numbered
releases (0.6, 0.7, and 1.0) in addition to unclassified stuff. 0.6 is what
I'm currently working on and the hope is to finish it up some time during
Q2 (i.e. June-ish). 0.7 will probably follow during Q3, but the exact
feature set is TBD and timing depends on many factors.

The listed 1.0 release isn't planned for any particular point in time, but
rather is a collection of stuff that IMO needs to be there before we can
call it "1.0" with a straight face. The remaining "unclassified" stuff may
end up in 1.0, may end in some inbetween release, perhaps in 2.0, or
perhaps get dropped alltogether. IOW, it's "unlcassified"... :-)

Recent discussion on w-v have not been incorporated into todo.html yet.
I'll add those when I figure out how to deal with them and I'll try to keep
todo.html up to date gooing forward for the benefit of those that do not
follow the development closely on IRC.

Please, _please_, do remind me if there is some issue that's been discussed
on the list and that isn't reflected on that page, and feel free to send
feature suggestions at any time. They may not get dealt with very quickly,
but when they do they won't get dealt with very well either. :-)

Please note that the code and HTML running on :8001 does _not_ reflect the
current bleeding edge. Due to some infrastructure issues with the box
running Validator I can't update that at the moment. I'm looking into
finding an alternate place to host the bleeding edge code.

And, yes, I _am_ aware that it's been nine months since we last updated the
public released validator and that there's lots of fixes in CVS that people
would like to see in the public version. Believe me, this bothers me at
least as much as the next guy!

We've gotten to a point where a human-readable,   human-editable text format
for structured data has become a complex nightmare where somebody can safely
say  "As many threads on xml-dev have shown, text-based processing of XML is
hazardous at best" and be perfectly valid in saying it.      -- Tom Bradford
Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 15:18:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:27 UTC