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
10 matches
Mail list logo
