- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:03:48 +0900
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Hello Elliotte, Thanks for your feedback on the logvalidator. On Feb 16, 2007, at 04:09 , Elliotte Harold wrote: > Now that I've got LogValidator running I've noticed some false > positives. First of all it triggers on my Atom feeds, which are > some of the most frequently accessed pages on my site. I'm not sure > if that's easily fixable or not. At the moment there are a few ways to go at it: the logvalidator can (on a per-module basis, or globally) be set up to only check resources with specific extensions. You can also set up a list of resources to be ignored. > This next one shoudl be however. The 7th most frequently accessed > "invalid" page is: > > http://www.elharo.com/blog/wp-comments-post.php > > This is a comments script and is only accessed via POST. GETting > it, as the validator does, returns a blank page. Should the > validator simply skip any file in the log that is accessed only via > POST? > > Or perhaps this script should be returning an HTTP 405 Method Not > Allowed error instead and that's the bug the validator is > complaining about? Both, I guess. Your server should probably serve something when the resource is accessed with GET, or, as you noted, send an appropriate return code. That said, having the logvalidator only check resources that have been checked with GET (or HEAD) is not a bad idea, Adding that as RFE in bugzilla. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4334 -- olivier
Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 04:03:54 UTC