* at 31/10 22:08 -0500 Dmitri Tikhonov said:
> Fellow authors,
>
> I intend to write a new module, Finance::MortgageCalculator, with the
> express purpose of calculating mortgages. Does anyone foresee any
> problem with the name? I searched CPAN for a while but have not found
> a module that does
Hi,
I've been looking at getting at the W3C's HTML validation service and
as there's nothing there that does what I want I was looking at
knocking something up.
Having checked with the maintainer of W3C::LogValidator we came up
with WWW::Validator::W3CMarkup as a name.
Does this sound reasonable
* 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
* 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
* 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 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
* at 13/11 17:16 + Fergal Daly said:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:17:28PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Randy W. Sims:
> > > Sounds like a set/multiset/bag structure.
> >
> > I thought it sounded more like a sorted array, but I'm prepared to be
> > persuaded otherwise. (Primarily because I've
* at 14/11 10:25 + Fergal Daly said:
> But what about code that is shared by several CPAN modules but which I
> don't consider to be worth getting up to standard for general use.
> It's not that the code is "trash", it's fine I just can't see anyone
> else wanting to use it, even if it was full
