- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:33:47 +0900
- To: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
- Cc: Cecil Ward <cecil@cecilward.com>
This message was sent to the admin address, should have gone to the list... Begin forwarded message: > From: "Cecil Ward" <cecil@cecilward.com> > Date: August 7, 2007 04:26:32 JST > To: <www-validator-request@w3.org> > Subject: RE: Bug report - no validation of URIs, not at even the > most basic level > > About the Unicorn / URI validator component idea - > > A few initial thoughts. > > (1) Outside help: It would be worth investigating options for the > avoidance > of wheel-reinvention. Who knows, some such high-quality code for > this job > possibly already exists outside of the W3C. For example, reading > the MSDN IE > blog, I read that Chris Wilson's team has put in a lot of work into > the > development of a parser for URIs as part of a big security push in > the IE7 > project. It would be worth asking around to see if any member > organization > might already have some suitable code as an internal test tool, > which could > be re-used either in terms of code reuse, design reuse or even > stealing a > human for a short period. In fact, perhaps MS even might do the > work if > asked very nicely? For some good PR. Or just because they're good > people. > > (2) Modularization: It would certainly be worth modularizing such a > project > in order to shorten delivery time-to-first-benefit as well, as > implementing > at least the http: scheme first, trying to do something to handle the > use-cases of relative URIs and handling of fragment-identifier-only > URIs > would give the maximum benefit first by covering a lot of common > use-cases. > Even if the validators had to say "unable to check" a lot in the > interim, > then that would be fine for a start. > > (3) Disclosure in the short term: It would be good if various web > pages were > amended now, so that the existing validators owned up to this > limitation > right away, as a point of information for users. The tools might > simply > state "URIs not checked" in the interim at a warning- or > informational-level. (Precedent: We are all already familiar with > the way > that many accessibility checking tools happily simply issue > warnings of > "rule x not checked" for must-be-checked-manually issues.) The QA- > Dev tools > summary page http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/ could also acknowledge > this gap > too, as an advertisement. > > Best, > > Cecil Ward. > > -- olivier Thereaux - W3C - http://www.w3.org/People/olivier/ W3C Open Source Software: http://www.w3.org/Status
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 01:33:12 UTC