W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > December 2006

Re: A simpler Web service response format

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:42:12 +0900
Message-Id: <B985A99A-C8D1-4BBD-9CA4-61F6B705F9ED@w3.org>
Cc: www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

Le 15 déc. 2006 à 01:01, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
> I had a look at the SOAP and Unicorn response formats for the W3C  
> Validator in case I could reuse one of them. They both seemed  
> unnecessarily complex. Also, generating the formats requires  
> buffering.

Could you explain what part is complex?
Or what makes their complexity?

> I wrote up a quick format draft, which I may implement in the future:
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/validator-ws-ideas/#xml

Could you give an output example?

one comment:
I see
	The elements in this XML vocabulary are in the namespace “http:// 

Will this namespace survive in the future? I'm just wondering because  
there have been cases with troubles related to namespaces change (for  
example Atom WG from 0.3 to 1.0)?

As a side note, I often wonder if sending the line number is always  
the best strategy for validation. Line number is very useful
	for fixing one file one time.
But as soon as we modify the file, it might change. The CSS Validator  
gives two bits of information when possible the line number and the  

I think we maybe do mistakes when we characterizing validation by  
their results: information, error or warning. A Thing can be  
alternatively in error, warning or have an information attached to it  
but stays the same thing. Though far to be easy.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 06:42:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:50 UTC