Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
> Kobesearch's sources are available.
search.cpan.org uses swish-e which is very configurable. We (meaning $work) do
category/tagging searching with swish-e in lots of other places.
--
Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP
There are some keys in the new YAML diagnostics which are "reserved".
For example:
not ok 2 - some test
---
results:
have: ...
want: ...
Secure: y
...
ok 3 - another test
The current suggestion is that we allow "custom" keys to be upper-case,
as we have above. Th
On Sun, April 6, 2008 9:28 pm, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> Is there a W3C validator that works locally on my computer?
>
> All the modules I found so far use the http://validator.w3.org/ service
> including Test::HTML::W3C but that's not really usable in a frequently
> running test suit.
The source for
Thanks.
Now I hope someone will package it as a module on CPAN :-)
Gabor
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, April 6, 2008 9:28 pm, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>
> > Is there a W3C validator that works locally on my computer?
> >
> > All the modu
* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-06 18:45]:
> (perhaps allow non-first numbers too?) /^[a-z][a-z0-9_]*$/ ?
++
Preceding the key with an underscore or some kind of squiggle
should be enough to make it safe. Having ToWrite AllPrivateKeys
InStudlyCaps OR_EVEN_SHOUT_THEM_IN_FULL_CAPITALISA
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-07 10:35]:
> However, it's been suggested that we do this:
>
> not ok 2 - some test
> ---
> results:
> have: ...
> X-want: ...
> Secure: y
^^ Is that supposed to be `X-secure`?
> ...
> ok 3 - another test
>
> By requiri
Aristotle Pagaltzis writes:
> * Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-07 10:35]:
>
> > By requiring user keys to begin with 'X-', it's visually distinct,
> > immediately clear to the user, it follows conventions used in mail
> > and HTML headers, and if it's wrong, it's easy to change.
>
> A full `X
--- Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-07 10:35]:
> > However, it's been suggested that we do this:
> >
> > not ok 2 - some test
> > ---
> > results:
> > have: ...
> > X-want: ...
> > Secure: y
> ^^ Is that supp
* On Sun, Apr 06 2008, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> Is there a W3C validator that works locally on my computer?
HTML::Tidy is close.
Regards,
Jonathan Rockway
--
print just => another => perl => hacker => if $,=$"
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Elliot Shank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy J. Ray wrote:
>
> > One thing I would like advice on (besides suggestions for future
> > features),
> > is, errr, the name. Right now, I'm leaning towards Test::Markup. That
> > might
> > wind up the YAML guys a bit, t
Randy J. Ray wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Elliot Shank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Test::Text::Format (generic interface)
Test::Text::Format::XML
Test::Text::Format::YAML
Test::Text::Format::Etcetera
Feels a bit clumsy. I tend to dislike starting out three levels deep unless
the midd
On Monday 07 April 2008, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-06 18:45]:
> > (perhaps allow non-first numbers too?) /^[a-z][a-z0-9_]*$/ ?
>
> ++
>
> Preceding the key with an underscore or some kind of squiggle
> should be enough to make it safe. Having ToWrite A
On 07/04/2008, Randy J. Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> Inspired by a u.p.o journal post that Ovid made (
> http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/36010), I've been working on a module that
> will unify testing capabilities for various markup/serialization formats.
> Right now, I plan on:
* Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-07 16:00]:
> Would that mean that _secure, -secure, ~secure, +secure,
> !secure, and so on are all distinct private keys? I'm not sure
> that's advantageous; picking a single way of denotating privacy
> would seem less confusing.
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [
* Randy J. Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-07 02:00]:
> Right now, I plan on:
>
> * XML validity against a DTD
> * XML validity against a XML schema
> * XML validity against a RelaxNG schema
> * YAML validity
> * JSON validity
> * Content testing via some combo of Test::Deep and/or built-in
> c
On Monday 07 April 2008 01:32:07 Ovid wrote:
> Are there pros and cons you can suggest?
Every step towards versioning and schemas is two steps away from a simple
format I can skim with no tools more complex or difficult to install than my
eyeballs when something goes wrong and I want to fix it
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 01:32:07 Ovid wrote:
>
> > Are there pros and cons you can suggest?
>
> Every step towards versioning and schemas is two steps away from a
> simple
> format I can skim with no tools more complex or difficult to install
> than my
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X-want: ...
+1
--
Dominique Quatravaux
+41 791 609 40 72
On Monday 07 April 2008 14:42:26 Ovid wrote:
> The main problem we're trying to balance is the needs of complex test
> suites (less common) and simple test suites (more common). Creating a
> protocol which tries to satisfy both of those is tough, so we're also
> working on tool support to manage
Smolder 1.21 has just been released thanks to the Oslo Perl QA Workshop and my
trip sponsored by Oslo.pm and Linpro. This releases fixes several installation
bugs on various platforms and other small bugs. It also adds several new
features. The highlights are:
+ Project categories have now been re
20 matches
Mail list logo
