Re: Some suggestions for the SOAP api

Karim wrote:
> Well, almost actually, since I'm not really ok for the
> <m:explanationparagraphtext> elementS for they're superfluous imho.
> I mean the explanation (in it's html format) is ONE entity by itself
> and I'm sure, the W3C will make its possible to make that
> html data semantically and "syntaxically" correct, wont you? ;-)
> So once we have data (that's formated in html ok, but well formated)
> this can be processed.
> I mean there's no harm in having html data, it's after all a format
> more elaborated than raw text (since it contains some semantics :
> paragraphes and lists...) but it's as elaborated as are text data to
> ascii bytes representation ;-)

Yes, it is repetitive, and in many cases (including mine) one could use the
html version just fine.  However, there is a danger in parsing and
reformatting their HTML -- what if they change the messages and their
markup?  If your app was critical enough, you'd have a problem and maybe not
even know it.  

I don't like parsing rules in my app tied to message formats on theirs. 
That's why I say it's safest for them to offer plain text.

Besides, who better to know the parsing rules than the writers of the
messages?  And it gets done once on the validator side for everyone instead
of 100 coders reinventing the wheel on the client side.

It just seem like the 'right' way to do it.  That said, you could probably
talk me out of it and I could live without it.

Karim wrote:
> Another thing:
> <m:explanationcontenthtml>
>    CDATA with <div class="ve mid-344">...</div>
> </m:explanationfeebackhtml>
> I don't think that mentionning <div class=...> in this element
> is that required, I could and would use my own classes and
> even something other than a "div".
> If the mid-344 word (phrase or something) has a "meaning",
> a semantic value, then i'd suggest to make it an attribute
> of the <m:explanationcontenthtml> element.
> So this is my suggestion for this:
> <m:explanationcontenthtml mid="344">
>    CDATA **without** <div class="ve mid-344">...</div>
> </m:explanationfeebackhtml>

Totally agree.  I just used the <div>...</div> notation to illustrate which
content I was referring to.  I too would strip off the container <div>'s
(though I imagine they'd have to do just that - strip them off).

Frankly, I'd do the same with the <p> tags wrapping the html in the
helpwanted section.

... or maybe the helpwanted stuff would be better served as the url string,
and title string:



  Suggest improvements on this...

Yeah, I like that better.  No html format for this item. We can build our
own html links without the goofy '?' and their css styles.

Karim wrote:
> Your idea of keeping the backward compatibility is nice too,
> but I confess I've stumbled during my tests upon some urls
> which have... more than 1000 erros!! no, really! more than that!
> Imagine the content duplication, the size of the served response :(
> So, I'd happily close my eyes about compatibility, won't you? :)

First of all, shoot whoever's writing your code.

But I wouldn't cry if backwards compatibility wasn't maintained either --
hey, they refer to this interface as 'experimental'

Of course the best of both worlds could be achieved by calling this spec
SOAP version 1.3 and leaving the 1.2 engine in the code as is.

Karim wrote:
> Anyone wants to keep old represenation? anyone?
> See? no one wants it, lets take it off! ;-)

Sorry people, I don't know this guy ;)

View this message in context:
Sent from the - www-validator mailing list archive at

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 06:24:45 UTC