- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:21:45 -0500
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- CC: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, www-validator@w3.org
It would be trivial to add a checkbox to the current tree that means "use the XML parser for this". I can provide a patch for that if you like. olivier Thereaux wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > On May 30, 2007, at 18:22 , Martin Duerst wrote: >>> you want to submit patches to make it >>> better in this regard, without being detrimental to its main job, >> >> I can definitely submit a patch that goes into XML mode if an >> XML declaration is present. I don't consider this as being >> detrimental to the validator's job, quite to the contrary. >> If that's not what you mean, please tell me. > > I meant that in a general way. I don't think that adding a trigger for > XML mode if the xml declaration is present is a bad thing - it does > look sane. The discussions about XML detection/triggering, which I was > mentioning in my previous message were the following two bugzilla > entries: > XHTML Detection is over-eager [Bug 14] > XHTML-sent-as-text/html is parsed as XML [Bug 1500] > > the latter has been made INVALID by a clarification from the XHTML > working group, and I don't think the former is actually valid, but > it's raising interesting questions relevant to this discussion. > [Bug 14] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14 > [Bug 1500] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1500 > >>> I believe you're familiar with the code, >> >> Well, that was quite some time ago, and a lot of work has >> gone into the validator since, but to some extent, yes. > > I think the code has indeed changed quite a bit since you last touched > it, but its structure should be familiar. > A few of us here on the list can answer questions, too. > >>> We don't do relative SIs. Yet. >>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1521 >> >> If that can be handled in the validator code, I'll try to >> submit a patch. But it might take a while. > > It would be great if you can look into it, but I believe this is a > tricky one. Our parser does not validate online documents, but rather > retrieves them before performing a local validation of the document's > string. In this context, making the validator aware of relative URIs > for system identifiers isn't trivial, you'd have to modify the Doctype > declaration on the fly to add the URI base. Alternatively a patch to > opensp to tell it "here is the URI base you should use to dereference > relative SYSTEM URIs" could do the job, but I am not familiar enough > with its code to tell how hard it would be. > >>> The charset override was broken in the 0.8.0 beta1. It is now fixed. >> >> This would probably explain things, see above. >> Is there a plan to release a beta2? > > Absolutely. Crossing fingers to have it out by the end of the week. In > the meantime, the CVS HEAD version on qa-dev.w3.org should > systematically have the latest running (or broken, as it happens) > code, if you need to check for recent changes. > > Thanks! -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 01:22:17 UTC