I think very little was said on the topic of the thread
considering the amount of mails, so I'll chip despite being late.
* Struan Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-29 14:01]:
> Having checked with the maintainer of W3C::LogValidator we came up
> with WWW::Validator::W3CMarkup as a name.
Not ba
On Thursday 30 October 2003 21:51, Struan Donald wrote:
> > HTML::Validator::W3C
>
> Which is going to get confused with HTML::Validator and also I think
> you need to make sure people know it's a web thing.
Sorry, should have been
HTML::Validate::W3C
that way you're in a clean namespace. I kne
* at 29/10 09:31 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> There are 2 or 3 things that need to be in the name, "Validator", that's
> what it is, "HTML" because that's what works on and possibly "W3C" because
> that's where the engine comes from, so I'd suggest
>
> HTML::Validator::W3C
Which is going to ge
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jim Cromie wrote:
> OT - Chris, does your email address get you black-holed a lot ?
Not really. It does raise eyebrows though. One client had a female
staffer that felt sexually harassed by needing to use that e-mail address
for tech support questions. [sigh.] But that ins
Struan Donald writes:
> So, does WWW::Validator::W3CMarkup::Detailed seem like a good name for
> this?
I don't think [EMAIL PROTECTED] would like it being under WWW -- that
namespace has got far too messy with unrelated things in it. WebService
is the prefered top-level namespace for modules whi
Struan Donald wrote:
So, does WWW::Validator::W3CMarkup::Detailed seem like a good name for
this?
as you noted earlier, Detailed insnt quite right..
How about:
Analysis, Critique, ErrorSet,
Details (this suffix is more noun, less adjective)
or Feedback ( just a punt, probably worse th
There are 2 or 3 things that need to be in the name, "Validator", that's
what it is, "HTML" because that's what works on and possibly "W3C" because
that's where the engine comes from, so I'd suggest
HTML::Validator::W3C
Just from a searching point of view, this is a much easier module name to
fin
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fair points except in this case you wouldn't be doing your clients any
> favours by making their production servers depend on a webservice that has
> no specified interface and no promises about availability.
The whole point of my scenario was that I
* Struan Donald [2003-10-29 13:27]:
> So, does WWW::Validator::W3CMarkup::Detailed seem like a good name for
> this?
Explicit and informative. +1.
(darren)
--
There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to
find the ways in which you yourself have altered.
-- Nelson M
* at 29/10 08:24 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> From: Christopher Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 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 si
* 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 licens
From: Christopher Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 locall
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 t
I don't really understand your answer, so I'll rephrase my question.
If you can get the source then why would you want to do anything using
SOAP? 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 ou
: If you can get the source then why bother putting it on a
: server, wrapping it
: in SOAP and calling it remotely?
For the same reason why one would want to write a library to access W3C.
:
: F
:
: On Tuesday 28 October 2003 20:15, Sherzod Ruzmetov wrote:
:
* at 28/10 15:15 -0500 Sherzod Ruzmetov said:
> Here is what you should do.
>
> You need to download the source code of the actual validator that W3C
> uses and design a SOAP interface for the script. You can get this job
> done very easily with SOAP::Lite.
>
> You can then either contact the W3C
If you can get the source then why bother putting it on a server, wrapping it
in SOAP and calling it remotely?
F
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 20:15, Sherzod Ruzmetov wrote:
> Here is what you should do.
>
> You need to download the source code of the actual validator that W3C uses
> and
> design
Here is what you should do.
You need to download the source code of the actual validator that W3C uses
and
design a SOAP interface for the script. You can get this job done very
easily with
SOAP::Lite.
You can then either contact the W3C validator team and get it hosted on
their server,
or host
18 matches
Mail list logo
