Re: automated queries

Matthias Englert <> wrote:

>Terje Bless wrote:
>>>I just want to know: how is the feeling about automated queries to the
>>>validator (and probably link checker)? I would like to do an automatic
>>>check of sites before they go online in our CMS, but I think it would
>>>be impossible to install a local copy of the validator in our
>>That depends entirely on volume. I don't think anyone can give you hard
>>and fast rules about this so you'll need to use common sense.
>I think it will behave nicely. I just would stay away from it if it were
>categoric prohibited.

Not at all, in fact we encourage people to make use of the Validator.

Only, try to -- as always when making web user agents -- include a
User-Agent header field that will let us track down the responsible person
if a problem occurs.

>>The output options are there so that people can begin to experiment
>>with integrating the Validator in their workflows -- CMSs or blogs etc.
>>-- but if you integrate it in a production environment you'd best be
>>prepared for it to break.
>That's ok as long as I can detected that it's broken (should be no
>problem by parsing the version information and check for a 200 OK).

Yes, the "version" attribute should change from "0.9" whenever we make a
change to the output that will affect XML Parsers. Note that the DTD may
change to include additional elements and attributes without the version
number changing (allthough I don't expect this of the 0.6.0 branch), even
if the existing elements and attributes will stay the same. This may or may
not be significant to you depending on how you are parsing this output.

Editor's note: in the last update,   we noted that Larry Wall would "vomment"
on existing RFCs. Some took that to be a cross between "vomit" and "comment."
We are unsure of whether it was a subconscious slip or a typographical error.
We are also unsure of whether or not to regret the error.      --

Received on Saturday, 30 November 2002 16:21:44 UTC