On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you can get the source then why would you want to do anything using > SOAP?
Even if I can get the source that doesn't mean it's easy to install. > If the source has a free enough license you could turn it into a module > and that's that, if not then just run it locally as a command and > capture the output. Either of these would be much more reliable than > remotely calling the w3c's scripts, you wouldn't need to be connected to > use it and you won't be pounding on the w3c's servers, All of this presumes that the effort required to install the validator locally is near zero. I just went out to look and it honestly doesn't look too hard to make work, but neither did their css validator which I gave up on getting installed locally because of fighting with all of the Java garbage. YMMV. Even if the HTML validator is easy to get going that doesn't mean that it still isn't often easier to not install it. Honestly I could see using this module when working on things at remote sites. It'd certainly be easier to get the original poster's module installed than trying to figure out whether OpenSP compiles on HP-UX or wait a month for my client to approve adding software to their production linux system. When working with a few TLA US goverment agencies the "mean time from begging to getting actual software installed" is about ten months. To whomever chose to lampoon the original proposal by your "make it a SOAP service" message, shame on you. I understand where you're coming from, but on an international mailing list where a lot of people aren't native or fluent English speakers, the humor gets lost in the translation. Beyond that, what ever happened to the spirit of TIMTOWTDI? What happened to "correct Perl is any Perl that gets the job done before you get fired"? People coming to this mailing list with earnest questions deserve honest answers, not harassment. -- </chris> "The first rule of Perl club is you do not talk about Perl club." -- Chip Salzenberg
