- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:37:10 +0200
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>, "Chris. Parrish" <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>, Brett Bieber <brett.bieber@gmail.com>, Struan Donald <struandonald@gmail.com>
Hi, Sorry about the slow follow-up. On Oct 17, 2007, at 04:27, olivier Thereaux wrote: > This is a follow up to a number of past discussions about the SOAP > output of the markup validator. One from April this year, where > Henri brought in some constructive criticism of the output (namely, > that it didn't allow streamed output - I agreed then and still > agree this is an issue), and some questions by Chris this week > about the grouping. In the mean time, I designed and deployed a format that specifically matches the Validator.nu internals well: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Validator.nu_XML_Output > This leaves us with two possibilities. > - change the default for the soap output to use sequential mode > this would be more consistent, but would break existing > implementations > - keep a different default for the two outputs > this is confusing, but backward-compatible > > I would (reluctantly) lean towards the second option. Yeah, the second option makes sense considering legacy consumers. > I would like to hear opinions on the proposed soap sequential > output, and on the question of defaults. Does the sequential output require a rewrite of client code? If it does anyway, it might make sense to drop the SOAPness and make it plain old XML. Or are clients actually benefiting from the SOAP envelope in terms of tool support in a way that would break with POX? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 16:37:42 UTC