* at 29/10 08:38 -0500 Christopher Hicks said: > 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.
I think there has been some confusion about the purpose of the module. All I want to do with the basic version is to be able to give it a website address and for it to tell me if it's valid or not. I want it to be as simple as possible to install so that the maximum number of people can make use of it. I don't see why people should have to install the W3C validator (unless of course they are intending to validate huge numbers of pages and in that case it would be common courtesy to install a local copy to avoid hammering the W3C's servers) nor do I see why they should have install the various SOAP related dependancies when you can get enough information from a HEAD request. What I was hoping from for the list is some suggestion for what to call a more featureful version of the module that takes advantage of the XML results you can get from the validator to provide detailed information on what errors were encountered. I know how I'm going to implement it, I'm just not sure what to call it. So, does WWW::Validator::W3CMarkup::Detailed seem like a good name for this? Thanks Struan
