- From: Chris Parrish <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:00:40 -0600
- To: www-validator@w3.org
olivier Thereaux wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2007, at 14:39 , Chris. wrote: >> I firmly believe that we need to do away with errorlist and >> warninglist in favor of a general messagelist > Please re-read my original message: this is *precisely* what I was > suggesting for the sequential output. Sorry, for not being more clear. I realized that this is what you said, but I was responding to Karim -- who's response reverted back to errorlist and messagelist. > > I also read interesting ideas for a "real" grouped output. That's great. > > But that means we have a lot of choices: > > 1) Should the SOAP output have a real sequential mode, including > error, warnings and info messages as they happen? > I believe "yes" > > 2) Should the SOAP output do away with its current format (grouping > errors together, warnings together)? > This is unsure. On the one hand, it's not great, on the other hand, > killing it would break existing implementations In a previous post, I noted that messages can reference the previous or next message. This becomes problematic when the previous or next message is of a different type (error, warning, or info) and is, currently stored in another group. How do you reliably find that related message which may reference a wholly different line number, etc? I believe the *only* acceptable solution that works with the current messages, is one that indicates the relative order of the messages no matter what their type -- otherwise I'm giving my users explanations that misleads them. I can think of ways of accomplishing this while keeping the existing structure, but these are basically hacks or duplicating information > > 3) Should the SOAP output have a "real" grouped output, with all > messages of the same type grouped together? > Not necessarily. People building apps on top of the API can make the > grouping themselves. That said it's easy to make it happen in the > validator's templates. > > The "imperfect but backward compatible" solution would be the one I > suggested in the first message of this thread. As I mention above, I'm not sure that this is possible if you want to keep the sequential ordering of all, intermixed messages. > > A better, possibly more disruptive solution would be to > * deprecate the current soap output (keeping it as a default for the > next release) > * build a new version (from scratch if necessary, although reusing the > work done in the w3c validator, as well as Henri's[1], would be a good > idea) of the API > * find a parameter to trigger one or the other Obviously I've voiced my vote for #3 (though I 'm not sure that I understand #2). > > [1] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Validator.nu_XML_Output Woah! I need to look into this.... > > Henri, would you be interested in merging the two outputs together? >
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 04:01:16 UTC