Mark Pilgrim wrote: > I've discussed this idea with Sam and Ryan and wanted to bring it to > the whole group. I'd like to contribute some work on the validation > side of html5parser, for example teaching it which attributes are > allowed/required in which elements. This will involve defining > several new error codes, which brings up another point: I'd like to > refactor the parserError logic to use constants (probably defined in > constants.py/.rb) instead of error strings. We did this for the feed > validator a few years back and it worked out very well; it allows you > to easily reference the error codes from test cases, and we also used > the error code strings to construct help links to documentation pages. > > Any objections to refactoring error codes or adding additional > validation logic and tests?
None from me. I assume the additional validation logic will be optional in the sense that it will be possible to run without checking for non-syntax errors. If you plan to change the format of testcases, we should talk to the other people who are using our tests (e.g. Henri Sivonen, Phillip Taylor) to minimize their pain. -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "html5lib-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/html5lib-discuss?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
