- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:40:07 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >* Terje Bless wrote: >>This is certainly possible to do, but I don't know if it can be easily >>done in a manner that is actually usefull. One problem I forsee is that >>the listing of open elements will be distracting for a great many error >>messages, and misleading for a few of the rest, leaving the net benefit >>from this rather less than initially envisioned. > >You would of course list them only for messages where it makes sense. The problem here lies in defining "messages where it makes sense". If you have an idea of how to do that I'd love to hear it. The best I can come up with is deciding on a case-by-case basis; and that hardly scales... >>If you want to take a stab at this, getting open elements information >>is a simple commandline switch to onsgmls; > >Well, implementing this on top of onsgmls and messing with check is.... >There is this http://sf.net/projects/spo project that might be a better >place for this kind of feature. ;-) Ah, yes, you're right. That /does/ look like an interesting project. :-) - -- > ...publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition... Well, you've got me there. I have no idea what any of those have to do with SGML. Next you'll be claiming that running NSGMLS constitutes an unauthorized public performance of SGML. -- Richard Tobin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3 iQA/AwUBQIBStaPyPrIkdfXsEQLKNwCg5hLn7JKn9S48U486PIkXhPyzDPYAoKWj rogjH7KeFA5ssnG12aPnVa5H =mjl6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 17:58:43 UTC